I think the words were “At least I have chicken”
I think you might be overstating things - an authoritative source puts the crazification factor at a mere 27%.
Looking through the thread, this is the one I like the best.
It’s not just a matter of beating Gingrich. If more than a tiny portion of the electorate decides that the problem is Newt personally, rather than an obstructionist GOP, the Republicans will win the Senate, enlarge their House majority, and generally create a situation where Obama might as well have lost.
If Barack Obama does lose, I think it will be so obvious that it was due to a world-wide economic meltdown, rather than him personally, that the Democrats should nominate him again in 2016 (especially if the depression lasts until then, and that can’t be ruled out).
Do you think the other candidates have done this (projected a clear notion why they want to be president)?
gingrich had the goverment shut down twice. while that may make some tea party types happy, it was seen and is still seen as a failure.
obama may have been at the brink of it, he and boehner didn’t have a shut down.
obama can easily point to that.
He also needs to do what all of those other dickweed candidates have been afraid to do up to this point: bring up the ethics and corruption violations that got him booted from Congress in the first place. Do we really want a criminal in the White House?
Hire a bevy of 24-year-old bleach blonde bimbos to volunteer in Gingrich offices in every swing state.
Re-write history much?
Gingrich was brought up on ethics charges over whether a college course he ran was for political purposes or not. It was deemed to be not eligible by the House Ethics Committee, but was later cleared by the IRS as being OK.
He was never convicted of any crime nor found by the ethics committee to be “corrupt”.
And he wasn’t booted from Congress. Some Reps (including Boehner) attempted a coup to take over House leadership, but they failed.
He did squander his party’s majority position with his witch hunt impeachment action against Clinton, and that, almost certainly, caused him to leave Congress, but the decision was his.
I don’t want to see him in the WH because he is overly confident of his own world view, is brash and quick tempered, and is often wrong without realizing it (or being open to criticism). No need to make up things about him to paint him in a negative light-- the truth is more than adequate for that purpose.
Realistically Newt is unelectable and has way too many problems to ever be the nominee let alone President. That’s what people were saying in 1996 and it’s just as true now as it was then, I think Newt felt time might heal his wounds but unfortunately memory has proven longer than a decade for him in the political world.
If by some stroke of misfortune (for the Republicans) Newt was the nominee and I was Obama’s campaign manager I’d advise a “rose garden” strategy in which the President just says a lot of platitudes, maintains the high road, highlight achievements and ignore negative campaigning. Newt is such a disaster the only job of the Obama team would be to keep the President from getting bogged down in debates on issues where the public is strongly against Obama, just look Presidential and kiss babies, don’t get down in the mud with Newt and he’ll have made his own noose a dozen times over before election day.
I appreciate your pointing this out: I’d incorrectly remembered his departure from Congress as being directly related to his $300,000 penalty. So I just read up on his ethics violations, and they’re deliciously ironic.
He wasn’t fined so much because of the college course issue, as you imply. The House Ethics Committee came down on him so harshly for lying during the investigation.
Which makes me think of another politician around that same time who got in trouble for lying during an investigation. What was his name? And who was it in the House who spearheaded the charge against that politician? Lemme think, lemme think…
Oh, oh, I know this one! The guy who spearheaded the charge was the same one that was banging Congressional staffer, Callista Bisek (while he was married to Marianne Ginther, who he was banging while still married to Jackie Battley)
Who’s he banging now, while still married to Callista?
That’ll teach me not to do my homework. Retracted.
One of Gingrich’s favorite campaign trail topics is the threat of an EMP pulse from a detonated atomic weapon above the United States. Forget that Yousaf Butt a nuclear scientist at the Union of Concerned Scientists who completed a lengthy analysis of EMP for the Space Review and said “If terrorists want to do something serious, they’ll use a weapon of mass destruction not mass disruption. They don’t want to depend of complicated secondary effects in which the physics aren’t clear.” Newt says, “it’s like going aboard the Titanic and knowing it’s going to sink and not putting on the lifeboats”.
No Newt. It’s like going aboard the Titanic and being worried a whale will hit the ship. The incredible improbability combined with the low level of inconvenience if it did occur isn’t the most pressing issue here. But Newt knows his audience, highlight a new relatively unknown fear (real or imagined) and promise to protect us from it. That’s how the debates are going to go and it’s just so fucking sad.
Well, he’s making a play to fuck over the entire country. That’s kinda the same thing…
The sad part is that such a thing might well work.
What, is he basing his defense policy on One Second After?
That’s it, right there! He sees the movie Boys’ Town and wants to bring back orphanages. He reads a science-fictiony book or sees a movie and decides there is a threat to the U.S. somewhere, somehow, based on what he read or saw. That’s like seeing Star Trek and trying to tell people we are at risk from attack by Klingons (or Cardassians, or…). Yeah? Prove it isn’t so! Can you? Hah, thought not!
He says this stuff in a serious, I-dare-you-to-call-me-on-this authority figure voice and he seems to have some credibility. Just the fact that the Liberal Media will give him airtime gives him credibility.
The Kardashians scare the hell out of me! I hear they can estimate your net worth from twenty yards away by the twitching in their clitoris!
At the rise of Obama’s candidacy in 2007 and through 2008, the media highlighted his intelligence, oratory and debating skills–to a (sometimes) fawning and hyperbolic degree (and I’m an Obama supporter). I think the right-wing base has reacted to this by overly discounting all three of these as a myth; Ross Douhat–whom I usually find worthless–actually finds a nut with this analysis:
This leads Douhat to conclude that the base is pining for a candidate who can finally outsmart and out-orate Obama, and in the process expose Obama’s true weakness, a kind of “conservative revenge fantasy”.
The problem with this strategy, of course, is that (1) elections don’t usually turn on debates–polls may move briefly based on debate outcome, but this effect tends to dissipate after a few weeks–and (2) even if an election could be swung by a debate, it’s unclear that Gigrich’s debate performance in these primaries–where he was usually ignored and never really challenged by his opponents–would translate well to taking on Obama.
Obama then would be wise to coax Gingrich into this arena. Gingrich would almost certainly take the bait, leaving him less time for things like defining his own initiatives (i.e. forcing Obama to play on Gingrich’s terms). I get the sense that a war of words would end up (at best for Newt) as a wash, and if your perceived strength can only gain you a draw, you’re not going to win the election.
Wait, Gingrich is concerned that the terrorists will set off a nuke high enough to EMP the entire country? With what space program? Al Qaeda certainly has trucks, probably has ships, and just might even have a few planes of their own, but there’s no way they have their own ICBMs.