Gingrich win good for Dems (Romney comes out swinging)

[CapelDodger]

Not to mention the fact that if Gingrich wins the nomination, he's not exactly a weak conservative candidate. On the contrary, he seems to be espousing the ideals that conservatives have been repeatedly telling us we need to get back to. If America ends up rejecting him - and those ideals - well, that should tell you something.

This could just be the best US Presidential Election Year Ever. If it's a slug-out right up to and into the Republican Convention, and Gingrich wins courtesy of Rand Paul's delegates ... it could be one of thoe defining contests in US history.

I'm going long on popcorn futures myself.

 

[CapelDodger]

I mean, it sounds good, but he's gotta know that nobody's stupid enough to buy that, right?

No thinking is expected, just a positive reaction to the good sound.

 

[CapelDodger]

Good point. I sense more embarrassing revelations to come.

They both have reasons to stop talking about disclosure so I think we'll see that fade from the campaign. It's going to be about inspirational leadership and the vision thing.

 

[BenBurch]

We're just trying to tweak Republicans. I thought it wasn't working.

 

[MattusMaximus]

They both have reasons to stop talking about disclosure so I think we'll see that fade from the campaign. It's going to be about inspirational leadership and the vision thing.

No way in hell will the Democrats allow this issue to fade.

 

[thaiboxerken]

Newt thinks, as President, he'll be able to make a permanent lunar colony happen by 2020.

Eight years from now.

Eight years to overcome the technological and practical hurdles, test, implement, and build.

I mean, it sounds good, but he's gotta know that nobody's stupid enough to buy that, right?

That's funny, since I believe Newt will completely defund NASA, since it's a government agency.

 

[Corsair 115]

Newt thinks, as President, he'll be able to make a permanent lunar colony happen by 2020.

Eight years from now.

Eight years to overcome the technological and practical hurdles, test, implement, and build.

It's possible—provided the U.S. was prepared the vast sums of money that would be required to achieve the goal.

After all, when President Kennedy proclaimed the goal of the U.S. to land a man on the Moon by the end of the decade, the only manned space flight experience the U.S. had at that time was having lobbed Alan Shepard on a 15-minute suborbital flight. Yet eight years later the U.S. was landing men on the Moon.

 

[CapelDodger]

No way in hell will the Democrats allow this issue to fade.

That's the other campaign .

 

[CapelDodger]

That's funny, since I believe Newt will completely defund NASA, since it's a government agency.

Apparently it's going to be a free-enterprise venture. Entrepreneurs would be doing it already if NASA wasn't monopolising the best engineers, so shut down NASA and the rest follows as long as the US Government doesn't get in the way.

Or something like that, I don't think it was ever thought through really. It doesn't seem to be playing well for him even amongst drop-jawed (as opposed to slack-jawed) Republicans. I have a feeling Newt's about to crash and burn, which is disappointing.

 

[SezMe]

Yet another post fantasizing that the Republicans will defeat themselves. It's pretty obvious why we get so many of these threads; because nobody is very hopeful that Obama can win on his own.

I think there's some truth to this. The love Obama got in 2008 from the Dem base is just not there now. He's got to have a weak opponent and a continuing good economy to have a chance. The former is a guarantee but the latter is not. If Europe goes belly up and USA-based banks get hurt, the economy is going to stall. There are already signs of that. If unemployment starts to rise, Romney will be a real threat. The key for the Elephants will be finding some way to ease the tension between the "elites" and the Teabaggers. Won't be easy but may be doable. We can't point at Brainster and giggle quite yet.

 

[Tricky]

Yet another post fantasizing that the Republicans will defeat themselves. It's pretty obvious why we get so many of these threads; because nobody is very hopeful that Obama can win on his own.

That's because the Repubs are dominating the news. That's all anyone is talking about. If they mention the current administration, it's all boring stuff. Blah blah, hostages rescued in Somalia. Blah blah, economy bouncing back. Who wants to talk about that kind of crap? Newt's love life and Romney's riches are so much more interesting.

Biggest news about Obama is that he does a decent impression of Al Green.

 

[MattusMaximus]

That's the other campaign .

Yes, it is. But the Democrats will still keep this issue front and center all through the primary season.

 

[Tricky]

I see Herman Cain has endorsed Gingrich. Maybe it's because they're both from Georgia, or maybe they bonded when telling locker-room stories about the women they've had.

 

[mikedenk]

In George's years, it might not have been such a big issue, but the income gap between rich and poor has ballooned in the years since George ran. Now Mitt's miniscule tax is going to be used as further evidence that he is unconcerned with the poor and middle class, as well it should be.

Are there people out there who voluntarily pay more taxes than are required?

How does paying taxes at the set rate demonstrate that one is "unconcerned" with the poor and middle class?

 

[fishbob]

Can't recall where I read it, but Romney, Paul, Gingrich, Santorum are lately also known as the Committee to Re-Elect Obama.

And in response to Post 34: When one helps change the law so that ones set rate is lower than many of the middle class, one demonstrates vividly that one is unconcerned with the poor and middle class. See Bill Moyers recent shows for details.

 

[RandFan]

How does paying taxes at the set rate demonstrate that one is "unconcerned" with the poor and middle class?

That's not the point. It's those that demand that we don't raise taxes or who want to place an even greater burden on the poor and middle class to further help expand the divide and further erode discretionary income for the middle class and the ability to keep one's head above water for the poor. Those are the ones who are "unconcerned".

 

[ponderingturtle]

It's possible—provided the U.S. was prepared the vast sums of money that would be required to achieve the goal.

After all, when President Kennedy proclaimed the goal of the U.S. to land a man on the Moon by the end of the decade, the only manned space flight experience the U.S. had at that time was having lobbed Alan Shepard on a 15-minute suborbital flight. Yet eight years later the U.S. was landing men on the Moon.

And we spent what 5% of GDP in those years to do that. That is a major rise in taxes.