you mental midgets can accomplish immeasurable nothings by spreading your stoogery in some places…but not here…
here you are just a mental midget…
neocon1January 18, 2012 / 11:11 am
mehoff in chitown
could be,
glad to see you still have ESPn
ClusterJanuary 17, 2012 / 8:38 am
Newt had a strong performance last night and his response to helping the poor should become the mantra of conservatives – teach them how to get a job, how to get a better job, and then how to own the job. Democrats always engage in the soft form of bigotry by not believing in the individuals ability to succeed, and instead convince them that the deck is stacked against them and if it weren’t for democrats, they would have nothing. An elitist approach to be sure, but also disappointing that so many believe it. I had my first job when I was 12 years old, and I think learning how to work at an early age is a huge advantage.
As for me, it is still Mitt, but I could easily support Newt as well.
ClusterJanuary 17, 2012 / 6:56 pm
What? No one watched the debate last night?
RussJanuary 17, 2012 / 7:04 pm
John Hawkins wrote an article which was on Townhall.com titled “Five Ways Conservatives Will Have to Sell Their Souls if Romney Wins.” One of his points was this:
“I support capitalism because I believe it creates more prosperity, for more people, than any other system mankind has ever come up with. That doesn’t mean capitalism is flawless. After all, if capitalism had no flaws, socialism wouldn’t exist. What socialists don’t get is that capitalism, even with its flaws, is the best, most efficient, most effective way to help everyone — including the poorest Americans.
On the other hand, what some conservatives seem to be starting to lose sight of in their efforts to defend Mitt Romney is that not everything that creates a profit is moral, good, admirable, or even politically palatable. We’d never run a candidate who got rich running a chain of strip clubs, closing all his factories and sending the jobs to China, or by being the world’s most effective spammer. We can all see the issues there.
Along similar lines, it’s not particularly admirable to buy a company, load it up with debt, run it into the ground, and walk away with an enormous profit while the business goes under and hundreds of poor and middle class Americans lose their jobs – which is a very fair description of some of the deals Mitt made at the end of his tenure at Bain. Listening to conservatives talk about what a glorious thing it is when regular Americans get fired is more than a little bit disconcerting, particularly since when it was Bain’s turn to face that same kind of “creative destruction,” it had millions of dollars in debt forgiven by the FDIC in what could fairly be termed a bailout. The same goes for Bain making more than 15 million dollars on GS Technologies when ‘a federal government insurance agency had to pony up $44 million to bail out the company’s underfunded pension plan.’ That’s not a liberal argument, it’s a prime example of the sort of ‘capitalism on the way up and socialism on the way down’ that most Americans, including Tea Partiers, hated about TARP. Now, we’re going to be asked to defend that as one of the wonders of the free enterprise system because Mitt Romney may be the nominee?”
Now, how far off is he? Is the criticisms’ of Romney’s work at Bain Capital, although maybe not being articulated the best way, a justified argument rather than being an attack on capitalism?
ClusterJanuary 17, 2012 / 7:40 pm
Russ,
I can’t speak to the details of some of Bain’s failures but neither can you really, with the exception of parroting the lefts talking points. None of us know the details, so you may want to know of which you speak of before spouting off. And I will ask you what you think of the many pension funds invested in Bain, that reaped big rewards for average, hard working Americans. You do realize that there are winners and losers in any deal, and a lot of average Americans had their retirement accounts grow dramatically because of their investment in Bain, so I am sure that they are ok with that.
Secondly, how many jobs have been lost while Obama toils with his big government dreams? And how much money has Obama made during that time? I know Michelle had a fabulous time in Spain.
Let’s stay focused on what matters – ok??
RussJanuary 17, 2012 / 8:47 pm
Cluster,
I’m all for capitalism and writer John Hawkins said that he did too. After reading his article and read this part of it, I posted it for imput for any validity of the point he was trying to make.
I don’t know what Romney did or didn’t with Bain capital. My argument has been one candidate’s private sector business and what he earned was considered sinister. Any of his complaints are considered whinning. While another’s private sector business and what he earned, is considered an attack on capitalism, if criticized.I don’t like the double standard.
AmazonaJanuary 19, 2012 / 11:46 am
Middle America pension plans benefited from their ownership of companies resurrected by Bain, or in Bain itself.
Middle America pension plans took a big hit when they were stripped of their equity interest in GM so the stock could be handed over to unions in the Big Payback.
Let’s sit back and watch the RRL try to spin those facts into an anti-Romney narrative while defending Obama. Then we can see if Middle America is as stupid as the Left likes to believe.
AmazonaJanuary 18, 2012 / 11:03 pm
Along similar lines, it’s not particularly admirable to buy a company, load it up with debt, run it into the ground, and walk away with an enormous profit while the business goes under and hundreds of poor and middle class Americans lose their jobs – which is a very fair description of some of the deals Mitt made at the end of his tenure at Bain.
Will you please name names and give details? I mean, loading up a company with debt and then running it into the ground sounds like a pretty bad business model for making “enormous profit”. It sounds kinda counterintuitive, if you see what I mean.
AmazonaJanuary 18, 2012 / 11:06 pm
Listening to conservatives talk about what a glorious thing it is when regular Americans get fired is more than a little bit disconcerting,
Yeah, it would be. When did this happen? Which “conservatives” celebrated this alleged firing of these phantom people? Got any more infor? You know, like who got fired and who found it “glorious” and how you learned about this glee?
RetiredSpookJanuary 17, 2012 / 9:06 pm
During the debate last night, Romney mentioned a steel mill in Indiana that Bain helped get off the ground. One of the Fort Wayne area mills happens to be right in my back yard, about 2 miles from my house. They’ve been a great corporate neighbor, and I have several friends and neighbors who work there.
steelheadJanuary 18, 2012 / 2:22 am
Matt,
You are still backing Newt? Don’t you know he has an L next to his name. No not liberal, loser. But its poetic justice, he being a supporter of Citizens United, which led to superpacs, that Mitt Romney has never coordinated with, because that would land him in the big house, pumped huge money into anti Gingrich hit pieces after Gingrich had pulled ahead of Romney. Its like Gingrich cheered when the Supreme Court handed Romney the twisted dagger that later would be used against him. All of this is quite entertaining. Even if Obama does not win all of this entertainment will be priceless.
Unfortunately, with corporations being people and all, our votes have been quite successfully diluted and we will continue to be outleveraged by a smaller and smaller minority who will practice their form of free speech that can only be purchased with wheelbarrows of cash. For those of us who do not swim in rare earth, freedom of speech, equal representation and any number of other rights will become mere fading memories lost to time and pay to play access.
neocon1January 18, 2012 / 9:42 am
South Carolina & FLA
THEN get back to us.
NEXT?
neocon1January 18, 2012 / 9:43 am
meanwhile the GOP circular firing squad continues.
AmazonaJanuary 18, 2012 / 11:00 pm
“twisted dagger”?????
Guy, you gotta get out of the basement and away from your role-playing games! “twisted dagger” !!!!
What’s your character’s name? Drama Queen?
AmazonaJanuary 19, 2012 / 11:41 am
“swim in rare earth” ????
Oh, the melodrama of it all!
“corporations being people and all”
Nice misquote of a ruling but regurgitation of a Leftist distortion of it.
Uh, BTW, where do you come up with your whine about losing “equal representation”? What does that mean to you and how is it going to be lost and how is this affected by giving corporations the same rights as unions have had for decades? Are unions ‘people’?
And for those who defended Newt saying his first wife took advantage of a man much younger than her, you might learn a thing or two from this article.
AmazonaJanuary 18, 2012 / 10:58 pm
Well, I can sure see why Velma just LOVED this article. It is snotty, vicious, petty, and dishonest.
Oh, and blatantly biased.
Take this paragraph, part of the lead-in to the hit piece: In his teens, he married a woman who mothered him. In his 30s, he wed a woman who was broken by him. And in his 60s, he partnered with a woman who accessorized him. As president, is the best we could hope for some combo of spoiled child, browbeating bully and smug trophy holder?
Yeah, this is quite the objective article, isn’t it? And it goes from bad to worse, repeating the lies that first wife Jackie was in the hospital for “cancer surgery” when it was for a benign growth, and that he sprung the wholly surprising idea of a divorce on that visit. At least the author didn’t add the third lie that Jackie was “dying of cancer” on that visit—I guess Jackie’s being alive now kind of makes that lie hard to sell, though I am sure Velma would suck it down in a heartbeat.
I love it when Vel shares her sources with us——it’s always fascinating to see where she goes to stoke the fires of her innate hatreds and bigotries, even though one does need a shower afterwards.
bardolfJanuary 19, 2012 / 12:31 am
A year into his first full-time teaching job, Newt Gingrich applied to be college president, submitting with his application a paper titled “Some Projections on West Georgia College’s Next Thirty Years.”
Newt Gingrich fashions himself as the history professor of the GOP presidential field. So what exactly was he like as an academic? Elizabeth Williamson on Lunch Break looks at West Georgia College, which employed the former Speaker in the late 1970s.
Mel Steely, a history professor who played a role in Mr. Gingrich’s hiring in 1970, said the bid drew “a chuckle” from administrators. The following year, Mr. Gingrich applied to be chairman of the history department. That wasn’t greeted so kindly, Mr. Steely said, with some favoring a longtime professor and World War II veteran.
WSJ, DrudgeReport, Ann Coulter, … I guess it is time for Newt to stop now. I didn’t expect to see the big guns pulled out so early.
neocon1January 19, 2012 / 9:38 am
baldork
I used to watch his teaching show regularly, the man is brilliant.
PS un like you who “teaches” basket weaving and pole sitting.
AmazonaJanuary 19, 2012 / 11:23 am
neo, of course dolf, who settled in at a mid-level state school so he could posture as a biggish fish in a very small pond, is going to sneer at anyone who aspires to advance.
Why NOT apply for a higher-level job? It appears that the scathing critique of Newt that must be buried in the petty carping of dolf is based on indignation that he had higher goals.
Ohhhhhh Emmmmm Geeeeee!
Love it that this petty gossip is considered by some to be “big guns”. I guess we are supposed to take a preference for a “.. longtime professor and World War II veteran…” as scorn for the younger man. But this would require a dolflike ability to project all sorts of bizarre fantasies onto a narrative which does not support them.
I also note that apparently Newt’s application was not dismissed by all, as only ” …some (favored) a longtime professor and World War II veteran…” It appears that some who actually knew Newt and his teaching had a better grasp of his ability than a peevish intellectual wannabe out on the staked plains of the Southwest.
Do ya think?
bardolfJanuary 19, 2012 / 12:47 pm
As usual, I am eligible to take any course the Newton could offer and pass the exams with flying colors. Newt and none of the so-called conservative posters on B4V wouldn’t even be academically eligible to sign up for my most advanced basket weaving courses.
The pure stupidity of the Newton in applying for chairman of a department he wasn’t even promoted in staggers the imagination. A chairman needs to be able to persuade colleagues to do things which they may not believe in (like Newt’s environmental studies). You don’t persuade Ph.D.’s in history with a big mouth, that only works on old women living in trailers and AC repairmen in Florida.
You need either
A: credible successful past ACTION=carrot, which being new Newt lacked or
B: the ability to coerce people=stick, which Newt lacked because those people would vote on his tenure and promotion
NONE of the commentary above is mine. It is from the WSJ which is hardly known for petty gossip. Today the gossip will start, Newton’s ex-wife has discussed that Newty wanted an OPEN marriage.
Newt has never advanced based on his academic skills. He profited based on his ties with the government.
@Amy
Newt’s higher goals are to sell half-baked BIG ideas to rubes like you, take money from the government and have an open marriage.
My goals involve maximizing the amount of time I have available to conduct research and spend with students. I don’t make much money and yet I still see a seething envy from crackpots like you every day because I have a modicum of freedom in deciding how to break up my workday.
AmazonaJanuary 19, 2012 / 11:36 am
I think Newt Gingrich would be so vastly superior a president than Barack Obama has been that I would have no problem at all in voting for him, if he were to become the candidate.
Ditto for Romney.
Ditto for Santorum.
The thing is, I would expect any of these fine men to bring into the new administration the other two talented guys, to form a formidable team of business acumen, vision for the future of the nation, political knowledge and commitment to returning to a more Constitutional mode of governing the nation.
When I envision a team of Romney, Gingrich, Santorum, Bolton, and others on the Right, I’m confident about the future of the country, no matter which one has the big desk in the Oval Office.
I think Bachmann would have been a good leader, but also realize that any woman is going to be more vulnerable to the smear tactics of the vicious Left. Just look at the efforts to attack Bachmann by making fun of her husband’s appearance, or claims that he “looks like” a pedophile.
(Of course, pedophilia is part of the new game plan of the smear campaign—not overt accusations of pedophilia, you understand, as that would be grounds for slander and libel suits, but just the sneering comments that they “look like pedophiles”. This is what we can expect from a political model which cannot admit to its ideology or run on its record.)
bardolfJanuary 19, 2012 / 12:53 pm
Amy, like Matt leaves out Ron Paul.
They positively swoon with the idea of loss of empire. It is not hard to imagine Amy and Matt under their parasols (but with bomber jackets on) watching as the men go off to war.
Ama, a ham sandwich would be vastly superior to the current resident in the White House. obAMATEUR, like a ham sandwich, exists – he doesn’t lead nor does he stick his neck out and offer solutions to the current problems. He passes the buck onto his fellow looters and we get the usual and tired old failed policies of the past to try again because this time it will be different.
Of course, the ham sandwich will save us money since it will not go on vacation every other month in separate aircraft, each will another aircraft full of an entourage.
I see velma chimes in with the usual talking points. She still defends Clinton, swears his impeachment was about sex and expects his “private life” not to be a subject to be discussed because “issues” are more important than moral character.
Then, of course, when it comes to a non-liberal all bets are off and their “private life” is subject to more scrutiny than anyone applying for TOP SECRET security clearance and moral character is an issue.
Ah, the hypocrisy of liberals. Let’s see, when Iran rattles its sabers and threatens to wipe Israel off the face of the Earth and shutdown the gulf, when China decides not to buy anymore debt, when Islamofacists come across our southern border from Mexico since the liberals refuse to secure the border, when N. Korea threatens S. Korea, China with Taiwan, etc. etc. who do you want in the White House – someone who is capable and can lead? or someone who is beneath a ham sandwich?
Blogs For Victory 
Still living in that dreamland, eh?
News flash, guys: IT’S MITT.
Deal with it.
you mental midgets can accomplish immeasurable nothings by spreading your stoogery in some places…but not here…
here you are just a mental midget…
mehoff in chitown
could be,
glad to see you still have ESPn
Newt had a strong performance last night and his response to helping the poor should become the mantra of conservatives – teach them how to get a job, how to get a better job, and then how to own the job. Democrats always engage in the soft form of bigotry by not believing in the individuals ability to succeed, and instead convince them that the deck is stacked against them and if it weren’t for democrats, they would have nothing. An elitist approach to be sure, but also disappointing that so many believe it. I had my first job when I was 12 years old, and I think learning how to work at an early age is a huge advantage.
As for me, it is still Mitt, but I could easily support Newt as well.
What? No one watched the debate last night?
John Hawkins wrote an article which was on Townhall.com titled “Five Ways Conservatives Will Have to Sell Their Souls if Romney Wins.” One of his points was this:
“I support capitalism because I believe it creates more prosperity, for more people, than any other system mankind has ever come up with. That doesn’t mean capitalism is flawless. After all, if capitalism had no flaws, socialism wouldn’t exist. What socialists don’t get is that capitalism, even with its flaws, is the best, most efficient, most effective way to help everyone — including the poorest Americans.
On the other hand, what some conservatives seem to be starting to lose sight of in their efforts to defend Mitt Romney is that not everything that creates a profit is moral, good, admirable, or even politically palatable. We’d never run a candidate who got rich running a chain of strip clubs, closing all his factories and sending the jobs to China, or by being the world’s most effective spammer. We can all see the issues there.
Along similar lines, it’s not particularly admirable to buy a company, load it up with debt, run it into the ground, and walk away with an enormous profit while the business goes under and hundreds of poor and middle class Americans lose their jobs – which is a very fair description of some of the deals Mitt made at the end of his tenure at Bain. Listening to conservatives talk about what a glorious thing it is when regular Americans get fired is more than a little bit disconcerting, particularly since when it was Bain’s turn to face that same kind of “creative destruction,” it had millions of dollars in debt forgiven by the FDIC in what could fairly be termed a bailout. The same goes for Bain making more than 15 million dollars on GS Technologies when ‘a federal government insurance agency had to pony up $44 million to bail out the company’s underfunded pension plan.’ That’s not a liberal argument, it’s a prime example of the sort of ‘capitalism on the way up and socialism on the way down’ that most Americans, including Tea Partiers, hated about TARP. Now, we’re going to be asked to defend that as one of the wonders of the free enterprise system because Mitt Romney may be the nominee?”
Now, how far off is he? Is the criticisms’ of Romney’s work at Bain Capital, although maybe not being articulated the best way, a justified argument rather than being an attack on capitalism?
Russ,
I can’t speak to the details of some of Bain’s failures but neither can you really, with the exception of parroting the lefts talking points. None of us know the details, so you may want to know of which you speak of before spouting off. And I will ask you what you think of the many pension funds invested in Bain, that reaped big rewards for average, hard working Americans. You do realize that there are winners and losers in any deal, and a lot of average Americans had their retirement accounts grow dramatically because of their investment in Bain, so I am sure that they are ok with that.
Secondly, how many jobs have been lost while Obama toils with his big government dreams? And how much money has Obama made during that time? I know Michelle had a fabulous time in Spain.
Let’s stay focused on what matters – ok??
Cluster,
I’m all for capitalism and writer John Hawkins said that he did too. After reading his article and read this part of it, I posted it for imput for any validity of the point he was trying to make.
I don’t know what Romney did or didn’t with Bain capital. My argument has been one candidate’s private sector business and what he earned was considered sinister. Any of his complaints are considered whinning. While another’s private sector business and what he earned, is considered an attack on capitalism, if criticized.I don’t like the double standard.
Middle America pension plans benefited from their ownership of companies resurrected by Bain, or in Bain itself.
Middle America pension plans took a big hit when they were stripped of their equity interest in GM so the stock could be handed over to unions in the Big Payback.
Let’s sit back and watch the RRL try to spin those facts into an anti-Romney narrative while defending Obama. Then we can see if Middle America is as stupid as the Left likes to believe.
Along similar lines, it’s not particularly admirable to buy a company, load it up with debt, run it into the ground, and walk away with an enormous profit while the business goes under and hundreds of poor and middle class Americans lose their jobs – which is a very fair description of some of the deals Mitt made at the end of his tenure at Bain.
Will you please name names and give details? I mean, loading up a company with debt and then running it into the ground sounds like a pretty bad business model for making “enormous profit”. It sounds kinda counterintuitive, if you see what I mean.
Listening to conservatives talk about what a glorious thing it is when regular Americans get fired is more than a little bit disconcerting,
Yeah, it would be. When did this happen? Which “conservatives” celebrated this alleged firing of these phantom people? Got any more infor? You know, like who got fired and who found it “glorious” and how you learned about this glee?
During the debate last night, Romney mentioned a steel mill in Indiana that Bain helped get off the ground. One of the Fort Wayne area mills happens to be right in my back yard, about 2 miles from my house. They’ve been a great corporate neighbor, and I have several friends and neighbors who work there.
Matt,
You are still backing Newt? Don’t you know he has an L next to his name. No not liberal, loser. But its poetic justice, he being a supporter of Citizens United, which led to superpacs, that Mitt Romney has never coordinated with, because that would land him in the big house, pumped huge money into anti Gingrich hit pieces after Gingrich had pulled ahead of Romney. Its like Gingrich cheered when the Supreme Court handed Romney the twisted dagger that later would be used against him. All of this is quite entertaining. Even if Obama does not win all of this entertainment will be priceless.
Unfortunately, with corporations being people and all, our votes have been quite successfully diluted and we will continue to be outleveraged by a smaller and smaller minority who will practice their form of free speech that can only be purchased with wheelbarrows of cash. For those of us who do not swim in rare earth, freedom of speech, equal representation and any number of other rights will become mere fading memories lost to time and pay to play access.
South Carolina & FLA
THEN get back to us.
NEXT?
meanwhile the GOP circular firing squad continues.
“twisted dagger”?????
Guy, you gotta get out of the basement and away from your role-playing games! “twisted dagger” !!!!
What’s your character’s name? Drama Queen?
“swim in rare earth” ????
Oh, the melodrama of it all!
“corporations being people and all”
Nice misquote of a ruling but regurgitation of a Leftist distortion of it.
Uh, BTW, where do you come up with your whine about losing “equal representation”? What does that mean to you and how is it going to be lost and how is this affected by giving corporations the same rights as unions have had for decades? Are unions ‘people’?
To get an understanding of how women view Newt, you might read this article:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/she-the-people/post/what-newt-gingrichs-three-wives-tell-us-about-the-president-hed-be/2011/12/31/gIQAd642UP_blog.html
And for those who defended Newt saying his first wife took advantage of a man much younger than her, you might learn a thing or two from this article.
Well, I can sure see why Velma just LOVED this article. It is snotty, vicious, petty, and dishonest.
Oh, and blatantly biased.
Take this paragraph, part of the lead-in to the hit piece: In his teens, he married a woman who mothered him. In his 30s, he wed a woman who was broken by him. And in his 60s, he partnered with a woman who accessorized him. As president, is the best we could hope for some combo of spoiled child, browbeating bully and smug trophy holder?
Yeah, this is quite the objective article, isn’t it? And it goes from bad to worse, repeating the lies that first wife Jackie was in the hospital for “cancer surgery” when it was for a benign growth, and that he sprung the wholly surprising idea of a divorce on that visit. At least the author didn’t add the third lie that Jackie was “dying of cancer” on that visit—I guess Jackie’s being alive now kind of makes that lie hard to sell, though I am sure Velma would suck it down in a heartbeat.
I love it when Vel shares her sources with us——it’s always fascinating to see where she goes to stoke the fires of her innate hatreds and bigotries, even though one does need a shower afterwards.
A year into his first full-time teaching job, Newt Gingrich applied to be college president, submitting with his application a paper titled “Some Projections on West Georgia College’s Next Thirty Years.”
Newt Gingrich fashions himself as the history professor of the GOP presidential field. So what exactly was he like as an academic? Elizabeth Williamson on Lunch Break looks at West Georgia College, which employed the former Speaker in the late 1970s.
Mel Steely, a history professor who played a role in Mr. Gingrich’s hiring in 1970, said the bid drew “a chuckle” from administrators. The following year, Mr. Gingrich applied to be chairman of the history department. That wasn’t greeted so kindly, Mr. Steely said, with some favoring a longtime professor and World War II veteran.
WSJ, DrudgeReport, Ann Coulter, … I guess it is time for Newt to stop now. I didn’t expect to see the big guns pulled out so early.
baldork
I used to watch his teaching show regularly, the man is brilliant.
PS un like you who “teaches” basket weaving and pole sitting.
neo, of course dolf, who settled in at a mid-level state school so he could posture as a biggish fish in a very small pond, is going to sneer at anyone who aspires to advance.
Why NOT apply for a higher-level job? It appears that the scathing critique of Newt that must be buried in the petty carping of dolf is based on indignation that he had higher goals.
Ohhhhhh Emmmmm Geeeeee!
Love it that this petty gossip is considered by some to be “big guns”. I guess we are supposed to take a preference for a “.. longtime professor and World War II veteran…” as scorn for the younger man. But this would require a dolflike ability to project all sorts of bizarre fantasies onto a narrative which does not support them.
I also note that apparently Newt’s application was not dismissed by all, as only ” …some (favored) a longtime professor and World War II veteran…” It appears that some who actually knew Newt and his teaching had a better grasp of his ability than a peevish intellectual wannabe out on the staked plains of the Southwest.
Do ya think?
As usual, I am eligible to take any course the Newton could offer and pass the exams with flying colors. Newt and none of the so-called conservative posters on B4V wouldn’t even be academically eligible to sign up for my most advanced basket weaving courses.
The pure stupidity of the Newton in applying for chairman of a department he wasn’t even promoted in staggers the imagination. A chairman needs to be able to persuade colleagues to do things which they may not believe in (like Newt’s environmental studies). You don’t persuade Ph.D.’s in history with a big mouth, that only works on old women living in trailers and AC repairmen in Florida.
You need either
A: credible successful past ACTION=carrot, which being new Newt lacked or
B: the ability to coerce people=stick, which Newt lacked because those people would vote on his tenure and promotion
NONE of the commentary above is mine. It is from the WSJ which is hardly known for petty gossip. Today the gossip will start, Newton’s ex-wife has discussed that Newty wanted an OPEN marriage.
Newt has never advanced based on his academic skills. He profited based on his ties with the government.
@Amy
Newt’s higher goals are to sell half-baked BIG ideas to rubes like you, take money from the government and have an open marriage.
My goals involve maximizing the amount of time I have available to conduct research and spend with students. I don’t make much money and yet I still see a seething envy from crackpots like you every day because I have a modicum of freedom in deciding how to break up my workday.
I think Newt Gingrich would be so vastly superior a president than Barack Obama has been that I would have no problem at all in voting for him, if he were to become the candidate.
Ditto for Romney.
Ditto for Santorum.
The thing is, I would expect any of these fine men to bring into the new administration the other two talented guys, to form a formidable team of business acumen, vision for the future of the nation, political knowledge and commitment to returning to a more Constitutional mode of governing the nation.
When I envision a team of Romney, Gingrich, Santorum, Bolton, and others on the Right, I’m confident about the future of the country, no matter which one has the big desk in the Oval Office.
I think Bachmann would have been a good leader, but also realize that any woman is going to be more vulnerable to the smear tactics of the vicious Left. Just look at the efforts to attack Bachmann by making fun of her husband’s appearance, or claims that he “looks like” a pedophile.
(Of course, pedophilia is part of the new game plan of the smear campaign—not overt accusations of pedophilia, you understand, as that would be grounds for slander and libel suits, but just the sneering comments that they “look like pedophiles”. This is what we can expect from a political model which cannot admit to its ideology or run on its record.)
Amy, like Matt leaves out Ron Paul.
They positively swoon with the idea of loss of empire. It is not hard to imagine Amy and Matt under their parasols (but with bomber jackets on) watching as the men go off to war.
Ama, a ham sandwich would be vastly superior to the current resident in the White House. obAMATEUR, like a ham sandwich, exists – he doesn’t lead nor does he stick his neck out and offer solutions to the current problems. He passes the buck onto his fellow looters and we get the usual and tired old failed policies of the past to try again because this time it will be different.
Of course, the ham sandwich will save us money since it will not go on vacation every other month in separate aircraft, each will another aircraft full of an entourage.
I see velma chimes in with the usual talking points. She still defends Clinton, swears his impeachment was about sex and expects his “private life” not to be a subject to be discussed because “issues” are more important than moral character.
Then, of course, when it comes to a non-liberal all bets are off and their “private life” is subject to more scrutiny than anyone applying for TOP SECRET security clearance and moral character is an issue.
Ah, the hypocrisy of liberals. Let’s see, when Iran rattles its sabers and threatens to wipe Israel off the face of the Earth and shutdown the gulf, when China decides not to buy anymore debt, when Islamofacists come across our southern border from Mexico since the liberals refuse to secure the border, when N. Korea threatens S. Korea, China with Taiwan, etc. etc. who do you want in the White House – someone who is capable and can lead? or someone who is beneath a ham sandwich?