How to Join Member's Area Private Library Search Today's Topics p Login
Main Forums Discussion Tech Talk Mature Content Archives
   Nav Win
 Discussion
 The Alley
 Gingrich - the next target   [ Page: 1  2  3  4  ]
 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94
Follow us on Facebook

 Moderated by: Ron   (Admins )

 
User Options
Format for Better Printing EMail to a Friend Not Available
Admin Print Send ECard
Passions in Poetry

Gingrich - the next target

 Post A Reply Post New Topic   Go to the Next Oldest/Previous Topic Return to Topic Page Go to the Next Newest Topic 
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 05-19-99
Posts 9708
Michigan, US


75 posted 12-19-2011 09:20 PM       View Profile for Ron   Email Ron   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Ron's Home Page   View IP for Ron

I understand, Mike. The thing is, though, every single Clintonesque escapade you mention in your post WAS covered in the press. Often to the point where I, personally, got very tired of hearing about it. (Which is not to imply I wouldn't, at times, have welcomed more action in place of the incessant talking. The Travel Office stuff should have been criminal, even if perhaps it technically wasn't.) Apparently, you and I simply have very different definitions of "very little coverage."

As for Bush getting hammered? In my opinion, Mike, he didn't get hammered near enough, and almost certainly not as hard as he'll eventually be hammered by History.
Bob K
Member Elite
since 11-03-2007
Posts 3860


76 posted 12-19-2011 10:31 PM       View Profile for Bob K   Email Bob K   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Bob K




quote:


True enough, Bob, although you had no problem doing exactly that with the Tea Party. It's funny how one's perceptions changes depending on which side of the fence they are standing on.



     You may be absolutely right, Mike, but I don't remember trying to say that the Tea Party was bad because individual members were bad.  I'd need some reminding of exactly where I said that before I'd allow you to put such words in my mouth. And a full quotation, not out of context, to back that up.

     If your animus toward Democrats began with President Clinton, then why would you call President Carter "The Peanut Farmer" in such a fashion?

     I would also be interested in knowing what your point of view might be about the truthfulness of the economic claims made by the Republicans about tax cuts resulting in economic growth, and, if you agree with them, what your sources of economic knowledge might be?  I'd be interested in knowing where all the jobs are that were supposed to be created by the Bush tax cuts?  I would like to know why the Republicans are now voting for a tax raise on the working and middle classes while they fight for tax relief for the very very wealthy?

     The more angry and aware the American public seems to become about this, the more the Right seems to try to suppress their right to gather and to speak out about their feelings.  I feel it's fortunate that the crackdown this time came at the beginning of cold weather, when maintaining a presence is as difficult today as it was at Valley Forge.  I'm very interested in seeing what happens when the spring comes.
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 05-19-99
Posts 9708
Michigan, US


77 posted 12-19-2011 11:30 PM       View Profile for Ron   Email Ron   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Ron's Home Page   View IP for Ron

Uh, what was the topic again?
Essorant
Member Elite
since 08-10-2002
Posts 4689
Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada


78 posted 12-20-2011 12:05 AM       View Profile for Essorant   Email Essorant   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Essorant's Home Page   View IP for Essorant

Something to do with Gingko, or Grinch, or Ostrich.
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


79 posted 12-20-2011 01:36 AM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

LOL@Ron!!

Bob, when the peanut farmer was president, I was living in South America and knew even less about his presidency. When I DID get interested in politics, I began studying what had actually happened all of those years I wasn't paying attention.

Interesting that you want to know where the jobs are from Bush tax cuts but don't seem to have any desire to know where are of the jobs are from Obama's stimulus. Not surprising though.

Ron's point is well made. If you want to begin threads on any of that shopping list you mentioned, be my guest...not sure where they fit in here.
Bob K
Member Elite
since 11-03-2007
Posts 3860


80 posted 12-20-2011 06:37 PM       View Profile for Bob K   Email Bob K   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Bob K



     Ron, you have a point.

     Since Gingrich is a Republican running in a Republican primary and most of the things being said about him are being said by Republicans to Republicans, I would suggest that Dr. Gingrich is dealing with the Republican slime machine for the most part.  Whether or not the audience for the dirt is written by Democrats or published by Democrats is sort of beside the point since the Republican base is the audience that the Republican slime is being directed towards.  The reality behind the various charges is beside the point for the Democrats, who are unlikely to vote for the Newtster in any event.  If the Independents are old enough to remember the events being spoken about by the Man's own party faithful, they can check their own memories against the Republican versions of events and sort it out for themselves.  While there are such things as young Republicans and always have been, the Demographics say there aren't a lot of them, so the young Independents will make up their own minds by getting the best facts they can.

     For the most part, ther whole discussion is a red herring trying to blame Democrats for an extraordinarily weak Republican field.  This doesn't mean the Republicans can't win; it simply means that I think the Republican field so far looks extraordinarily weak because it doesn't even appeal to very much of the Republican base.  It makes President Obama look artificially strong.

      This Red herring aspect also appears to apply to the  inability to focus on what seems to me to be the actual issue in the campaign, and the attempt to distract from any discussion of it.
Bob K
Member Elite
since 11-03-2007
Posts 3860


81 posted 12-21-2011 01:14 AM       View Profile for Bob K   Email Bob K   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Bob K



     And, as a reality check,

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/post/why-a-newt-gingrich-comeback-wont-be-easy/2011/12/20/gIQAfMcR7O_blog.html#excerpt
Essorant
Member Elite
since 08-10-2002
Posts 4689
Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada


82 posted 12-21-2011 01:30 AM       View Profile for Essorant   Email Essorant   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Essorant's Home Page   View IP for Essorant

"I have two grandchildren -- Maggie is 11, Robert is 9. I am convinced that if we do not decisively win the struggle over the nature of America, by the time they're my age they will be in a secular atheist country, potentially one dominated by radical Islamists and with no understanding of what it once meant to be an American." -Gingrich
 
Local Rebel
Member Ascendant
since 12-21-1999
Posts 5742
Southern Abstentia


83 posted 12-21-2011 02:17 AM       View Profile for Local Rebel   Email Local Rebel   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Local Rebel

A secular atheist Islamic regime?  He left out Nazis and communists and baby cannibals.  And camel rapers.
Huan Yi
Member Ascendant
since 10-12-2004
Posts 6334
Waukegan


84 posted 12-22-2011 01:15 PM       View Profile for Huan Yi   Email Huan Yi   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Huan Yi

.


Any downside on Jeb?


.
Bob K
Member Elite
since 11-03-2007
Posts 3860


85 posted 12-23-2011 02:49 AM       View Profile for Bob K   Email Bob K   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Bob K



     I may simply be showing that there's a great joke that's gove sailing completely over my head, John, but I have no idea who "Jeb" is and how he fits in.  I'd like to know, either because I may be missing out on a joke or because you might be saying something  interesting, and I'd like to respond to you as best I can if you're trying to join in.  Sometimes I'm simply too stuffy and rigid to follow along and I need a little help to pick up what folks are saying.

My best, Bob K
Grinch
Member Elite
since 12-31-2005
Posts 2710
Whoville


86 posted 12-23-2011 12:28 PM       View Profile for Grinch   Email Grinch   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Grinch


Bob

My guess would be - Jeb Bush

.
Bob K
Member Elite
since 11-03-2007
Posts 3860


87 posted 12-23-2011 03:47 PM       View Profile for Bob K   Email Bob K   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Bob K



     Mine, too; but I don't see the tie in, and I feel like I missed something thatr I probably should have gotten.  If not, I do that sort of thing all the time, and no big deal.  If I have, then I guess I feel a little silly, though.
Huan Yi
Member Ascendant
since 10-12-2004
Posts 6334
Waukegan


88 posted 01-04-2012 12:26 PM       View Profile for Huan Yi   Email Huan Yi   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Huan Yi

.
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/01/03/alan-colmes-mocks-rick-santorum-for -playing-with-his-dead-baby/


I've been thinking about it . . .
The Santorums are worst than weird;
they're serious.
.
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


89 posted 01-04-2012 01:48 PM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

Colmes is the weird one.  Does he make dems proud, I wonder?
Bob K
Member Elite
since 11-03-2007
Posts 3860


90 posted 01-04-2012 03:19 PM       View Profile for Bob K   Email Bob K   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Bob K



     What was the title on that show again?

     Does that suggest anything about the job description in terms of the material presented?  Would you expect the network to be using the show time to present long hard objective looks at significant issues of the day?

     There is a difference between news and professional wrestling on many channels, but on Fox it's increasingly difficult to locate.  In this case, it looks like Coombs is supposed to be the bad guy and seems to be hitting Santorum with a folding chair, for which his is making a forced apology in front of the mikes.  The whole thing has a scripted air to it.

     I was sad when the Santorums lost a child over ten years ago, yet here is a chance for Fox to use that child to help a moribund campaign along, and the dog and pony show comes out.  Was it Coombs, was it Fox, was it the Santorums, was it the Party, was it some combinatioin, was it ratings, was it theater, was it show biz?  I don't know.  

     If it was the Democrats, it was pretty stupid of them.  It makes them look bad at very little gain before any audience that would affect the larger election.  Cui Bono?  If it makes you feel better, however, by all means, blame the Democrats and Mr. Coombs.

     To my mind, though, it's still a Republican on Republican contest, and this little side story simply has to do with a way of distracting the Republican base with Mr. Romney's handy victory.

     On my was back from South Caronina this weekend, I was able to talk briefly with a very nice Censervative Republican gentleman who was reading a biography of Mr. Romney given to him by his some in law, a liberal Democrat, as it happened.  Mr. Romney wasn't as conservative as the gentleman  was talking to would have liked, not by a long chalk (grerat old idion), by he was reading that Romney biography earnestly anyway, and doing a lot of thinking.   Could he really trust Romney to uphold those conservative values?  

     You could yell he was doing so solid thinking.

     I wouldn't have agreed with the guy on almost anything, but it was clear as the day is long he was a good guy, and he had solid reasons for saying the things he was saying and he really meant what he was saying with all his heart.  A good man to have as a friend.

     I think he was coming to grips with how much he could trust Romney, and there's something important happening down trhere that might ber worth examining, maybe, if you like, in addition to how eveil the Democrats are being about the Sabtorums.  I doubt Senator Santorum will be President Santorum in the near future, though, in the same way that I doubt that the Democrats have found a way to polish off The Former Mr. Speaker Newton Gingerich.

     The election from the Repuyblican side seems more likely to turn on how many conservatives will be able to get enthused about Mr. Romney, and whether on not that number will overcome the country's tepid response to President Obama.  And whether the country's Democrats will be able to change condidates in mid stream and try Hilary, of course.
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


91 posted 01-04-2012 05:16 PM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

Another front-runner - more fodder for ABC News and Brian Ross. Took less than 24 hours..
http://news.yahoo.com/santorum-surge-brings-ethics-questions-152702229.html
Bob K
Member Elite
since 11-03-2007
Posts 3860


92 posted 01-04-2012 09:09 PM       View Profile for Bob K   Email Bob K   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Bob K



     Yep, there it goes again, Mike.  People come close to the front of the pack and those newspapers go breaking all the rules and actually investigating their pasts to see if there's anything back there that might hurt them or discredit them in an actual election.

     Only two reasons for that I can think of, of course.

     They're devious Democrats who are sneakily publishing actual facts about candidates in the forlorn hope that facts matter any more in electoral politics.

     It's election time and people are supposed to be made aware of facts about candidates that could have something to do with the future governance of People of the United States.  This being the time when the Republicans are out of power in the White House and the Republicans are running  candidates, we are learning stuff nobody particularly finds thrilling about the lives of Republican front runners.  Last time it was open season on pretty much everybody.  The time before that, it was open season on Democrats with occasional swipes at Bush, just as we're getting occasional swipes at President Obama right now that will probably intensify as the race goes on.  The attacks on the Republicans are pretty mild in comparison to what went on against Clinton, not only during the campaign but during his terms.  And the attacks on Obama are shaping up to be, in some ways, worse.

     Would you care to inform anybody listening if the attacks that the thread speaks about are perhaps untruthful; and if they are clearly by democrats in this still Republican on Republican race.  It seems to me that your concern should be whether or not the attacks, if they are in fact attacks, are truthful or not.

     If they are truthful, are they being reported accurately?

     Are the reports being slanted; are only edited versions or cherry picked versions of the truth being presented as substitutes for the whole truth?  Is there some reason that you believe that a true version of these facts should not be laid before the public — that is, would it cause civil unrest, panic, or public hysteria; or would it cause harm to groups and individuals that would not otherwise be harmed by a slower or more well managed release of that information?  Or is there an over-riding public interest that suggests that publication of these facts right now would be most useful?

     There are any number of other first amendment questions that might be chucked in there for discussion, of course.  I’d love to hear a discussion of any of them and how they bear on this current question.

     It sounds to me like this is a pretty much solid story that deserves to be published to me.  It's even a dog bites man sort of news interest, since Senator Santorum’s a family values candidate.


     The last word should go to a man named O’Neill, who was the benefitiary of one of Senator Santorum’s earmarks after Mr. O’Neill’s real estate company made a generous 25,000 dollar contribution to one of the Senator’s funds.  Mr. O’Neill couldn’t speak highly enough of the Senator and his honesty, and the truth is that Mr. O’Neill could well be right.  The truth of the matter lies someplace where I cannot evaluate it.The appearance is troublesome to me, and I can say that.  I can also say that I believe that it is useful for a Senator to avoid that appearance whenever possible, and that Senator Santorum did not do that.  I will say that I wish Senator Santorum Luck, not only because I bear him not animus, but also because I believe that he would be an easier opponent for the Democrats in November, and I think that helping his candidacy along would be in the best interests of my party.

     However, I offered Mr. O’Neill the last word, and here it is, referenced to the the quote that Mike offered above:

"If he doesn't win it won't be because of his ethics," O'Neill told ABC News. "What's going to kill him is, this country wants someone down the middle."
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


93 posted 01-04-2012 09:45 PM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

No, I don't think he will get the nomination because there are other issues that will sink him. My only point was the ABC report of "ethic questions". Why questions? What was he investigated for? What was he convicted of? Anything? Nope. It's basically sleazy journalism in action again....saying something while not saying anything.

To be fair, ABC did the same thing concerning Obama and his property purchase involving Rezko. Obama acknowledged it was "boneheaded" of him and the entire incident went away. Will this go away or will it be milked for all they can get? Stay tuned......
Bob K
Member Elite
since 11-03-2007
Posts 3860


94 posted 01-05-2012 02:39 AM       View Profile for Bob K   Email Bob K   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Bob K



     I don't know if it will go away or not.  In the incident involving Mr O'Neill, the Senator was prompted to write a reply to accusations at the time saying that the incident simply proved what a great idea earmarks were, and that the Senator's own actions in earmarking eight million dollars in funding for Mr. O'Neill and his real estate investment company proved this.

     This may well be true.  There may be lots are great reasons for earmarking funds, but this has not generally been the official Republican position on the practice in recent years. Senator Santorum's remarks were clearly about the appropriate earmarking of funds, but I don't understand the party position to be anywhere nearly that flexible.  Each party is prone to be critical of the earmarks of the other, in my experience, and Senator Santorum is surely wise enough to know this.

     The other ethics question raised in the ABC article should not have to be pointed out.  It involved a home loan for  Senator and Mrs Santorum from an institution that was not open to the general public, but only to very wealthy investors, among which neither the Senator nor his wife qualified.  These investors also had to be investors in the bank to take advantage of the special rate; neither the Senator nor his wife were.

     Perhaps the Senate did not believe these were reason enough to bring or investigate ethics charges against the Senator.  Being 2006, and the Senate being, as I recall, in Republican hands, that might be possible.  Now, however, when the Republicans are having to compete rather than cooperate for a higher office, it is possible that the question could be brought up again.  It appears to have been.

     I think the issue was originally dropped because the Senator was defeated and the issue was suddenly moot.  The Senate ethic office no longer felt much interest in the activities of a former Senator.  I don’t know that the outcome would have been a conviction at any rate if the committee felt that the Senator had stepped out of line; the language is different.

     And you are correct to ask about the question of establishment of guilt and culpability.  I certainly would, and innocence is a good basic assumption.

     Nevertheless, the facts are the way that ABC states them, near as I can tell.  Nor are they distorted, out of context or cherry-picked.

     Santorum supporters won’t care.  

     Those who will care will probably be those independents who might consider him, though I suspect that they will probably be too close to the center to care.  They’re probably more open to Romney, if they can trust him; and trust would be an issue of those who would like Romney to be either more conservative or more liberal than he’s willing to be.  The really conservative group there is going to have to make a tough choice, and some of them are already considering it.  The more liberal end of the independents will need to see if they think he’s closer to the center than President Obama.

     No, he’s not.  To begin with, he’s coming out of a National Republican Party this time, not Massachusetts, which has more liberal and more conservative democrats to balance a Republican Governor.  

     I’ll leave the further details unsketched in for now.  They’re likely to change rapidly enough as is.  In my opinion.

     The issue is still where will the Republicans get a strong enough candidate to run against President Obama, whose power looks stronger than it is against a Republican field this weak.  The American Electorate as a whole seems to vote closer to the center.

     I wish I had a better idea of the senatorial and congressional field, where I think the Republicans remain strong, though I have hopes for a backlash to will take a lot of them out of office on the state and federal levels.  I’d like to hear what’s going on in Wisconsin in Michigan, in Ohio and Florida on those levels, should anybody have any ideas.
      
 
 Post A Reply Post New Topic   Go to the Next Oldest/Previous Topic Return to Topic Page Go to the Next Newest Topic 
All times are ET (US) Top
  User Options
>> Discussion >> The Alley >> Gingrich - the next target   [ Page: 1  2  3  4  ] Format for Better Printing EMail to a Friend Not Available
Print Send ECard

 

pipTalk Home Page | Main Poetry Forums

How to Join | Member's Area / Help | Private Library | Search | Contact Us | Today's Topics | Login
Discussion | Tech Talk | Archives | Sanctuary



© Passions in Poetry and netpoets.com 1998-2013
All Poetry and Prose is copyrighted by the individual authors