Democrats & Liberals Archives

Embrace the Newtmentum!

Nevermind that he has been married three times, is notorious for shutting down the government in opposition to President Clinton, is the only Speaker of the House to have been sanctioned for ethics violations, and resigned from his leadership and Congressional seat in shame. Your new GOP front runner of the month is Newt Gingrich!

It's really amazing how sad and entertaining the GOP primary is even before voting has started. A new name has been given a shot to beat Mitt Romoney where Bachmman, Perry and Cain have failed.

The news comes from PPP:

Newt Gingrich has taken the lead in PPP's national polling. He's at 28% to 25% for Herman Cain and 18% for Mitt Romney. The rest of the Republican field is increasingly looking like a bunch of also rans: Rick Perry is at 6%, Michele Bachmann and Ron Paul at 5%, Jon Huntsman at 3%, and Gary Johnson and Rick Santorum each at 1%.

Get your popcorn. Tim Pawlenty has still got to be kicking himself for leaving the race. I wish we could have Donald Trump in the mix as well. That would be a hoot.

Posted by Adam Ducker at November 14, 2011 1:22 PM
Comments
Comment #331980

I guess I’m confused, is it now an issue to be married 3 times? I’ve been married twice, could I still run?

As for shutting down the government, that action and the standoff between Clinton and the house helped lower the budget to almost a surplus, much better than we are seeing these days, isn’t that a positive? If Clinton is to get credit for a near surplus, shouldn’t Newt as well?

As for the ‘ethics’ violations, which he claims he didn’t commit and was later exonerated from, how does prevent him from being a viable presidential candidate again?

The full committee panel did not agree whether tax law had been violated. In 1999, the IRS cleared the organizations connected with the courses.

I guess I’m just confused by your article as to why you think Newt being the frontrunner at this point is ‘humorous’?

I admit, I won’t be voting for him, but because of his views, not his personal foibles…

Posted by: Rhinehold at November 14, 2011 2:07 PM
Comment #331982

“I guess I’m just confused by your article as to why you think Newt being the frontrunner at this point is ‘humorous’?”

Newt is a deeply, deeply flawed candidate that is leading only because the campaigns of the other flawed candidates have run into rocky waters. As a Democrat, I find that hilarious.


Posted by: Adam Ducker at November 14, 2011 2:54 PM
Comment #331983

But *WHY* do you find him ‘deeply flawed’? How is he more flawed than John Kerry, Edwards, Obama, etc? I can pull skeletons out of everyone’s closet when looking that hard, but you trot out ‘3 marriages’ as if it means something, or an ethics violation that was clearly politically motivated and wrong… Then mention his part in putting the US budget on the right track as if that was a bad thing…

Is there something else? Otherwise, seems to me like you just don’t like him personally and want to take it out on him in public, not provide a reasoned opinion on why he shouldn’t be president…

Posted by: Rhinehold at November 14, 2011 2:57 PM
Comment #331985

“…not provide a reasoned opinion on why he shouldn’t be president.”

Are you really suggesting Newt is not a flawed candidate? Picture a Democrat that cheated on his wives, has been married 3 times, was found guilty of an ethics violation in Congress, and resigned from his seat in Shame because of the dark cloud that hovered over him. Tell me you think that’s would not be a flawed primary candidate. Honestly.

Don’t get it confused though. It’s not about whether he should or should not be president. These are reasons he is a flawed primary candidate. This is not the kind of guy that’s going to unite the base.

Posted by: Adam Ducker at November 14, 2011 3:14 PM
Comment #331986


Exonerated after paying a $300,000 fine. The ethics committee did not exonerate him and the courts certainly didn’t exonerate him, so I guess the question is who did.
Gingrich was just as guilty as Jim Wright.

I would have thought that the other candidates would withdraw after hearing from Herman that God wants Cain to be president.

Newt’s rise is obvious, considering the actions of GOP voters, hopping from one tarnished candidate to another. Must stop the socialist from getting the nomination. How? By electing Newt? Isn’t he another socialist?

Ryan wants to run, but he wants the tea party to draft him.

Posted by: jlw at November 14, 2011 3:18 PM
Comment #331987

If anyone wants to pretend Newt is somehow only flawed in my mind because I don’t like the guy, take a look at how Freepers are reacting to the idea of Newtmentum back at the start of this month. They’re already starting to stew over him today as well.

Posted by: Adam Ducker at November 14, 2011 3:28 PM
Comment #331988

“I would have thought that the other candidates would withdraw after hearing from Herman that God wants Cain to be president.”

Don’t mock. God makes all things work together for our good. He pulls strings for Obama by telling nut jobs to run for the GOP to boost the President’s chances for re-election.

Posted by: Adam Ducker at November 14, 2011 3:36 PM
Comment #331992
Are you really suggesting Newt is not a flawed candidate?

All candidates are flawed, find me a ‘non-flawed candidate’ and I’ll show you one that hasn’t been fully vetted completely yet… I mentioned ‘DEEPLY’ flawed and no, if a Democratic candidate was on his 3rd wife I would yawn…

Lots of people have cheated on their wives, sorry but that’s not a reason to say they are unfit to be president. I would disagree with their actions, but we all makes mistakes and do stupid things in our lives, angels don’t exist.

was found guilty of an ethics violation in Congress

Again, he was accused of 84 violations, 83 were dropped. He was never found ‘guilty’ (I quoted the referenced information, try to keep up). Later it was found by the IRS that the company in question had done nothing wrong.

“The full committee panel did not agree whether tax law had been violated.”

“In 1999, the IRS cleared the organizations connected with the courses.”

He was censured by the house, but that does not make one ‘guilty’.

The 300,000 was to recoup the cost of the investigation, again in a settlement because he did not want to keep the investigation going. That the fully committee panel did not agree and the IRS cleared the organizations later should give you a hint about the validity of the charges, if you had an open mind. No where was he ‘found guilty’ of anything.

resigned from his seat in Shame because of the dark cloud that hovered over him

The ‘dark cloud’ was that his party lost seats in the house and the party blamed him, even though he was re-elected to his seat. He decided to leave congress because he no longer wanted to deal with the viciousness of the personal attacks that take place in that organization.

How does that make him ‘unfit’ again?

If the party that once blamed him for losing seats in the house during an election decide to put him up for nomination as their president, why would the Democrats hold that against him, isn’t that their business?

Sorry, as I stated, I don’t agree with many of his politics and won’t be voting for him on those reasons, the current trend of trying to tear people down for personal reasons like this seems beyond the pale. And both major parties do it, unfortunately.

Exonerated after paying a $300,000 fine. The ethics committee did not exonerate him and the courts certainly didn’t exonerate him, so I guess the question is who did.

What court found him guilty? Even the full committee didn’t agree that he had broken any rules. Unless you have other information that counters what I have stated here, I would be more than glad to see it. I fully admit I may be wrong but you have to show it to me, not just say ‘he’s guilty’ and then expect me to take it as read.

Posted by: Rhinehold at November 14, 2011 5:05 PM
Comment #331993

From the day:

“Mr. Gingrich ran a lot of very yellow lights,” he said. “Orange lights. There were bells and whistles going off.” Later Cole said, “He was taking risks … going right up to the edge.”

Cole also said that while the committee had not reached a conclusion about whether Gingrich had violated tax laws, that matter will be left to the Internal Revenue Service. The committee plans to make available its files to the IRS.

Gingrich admitted that what he did did violate the rules, but that it was not intentional. The IRS has not found him guilty of violating tax laws.

And, didn’t we have several members of the current administration violate tax laws, yet stay in office and are defended by the Democrats? Double-standard?

More info:

David Bonior brought 75 charges against Newt - and 74 of them were found to have NO MERIT WHATSOEVER. The last charge, whether Newt funded his college class “Renewing American Civilization” properly, was too complicated a tax issue for the committee to investigate on its own, so they brought in an outside tax expert to investigate. Two charges arose out of this investigation.

The first ‘charge’ from the ethics committee is that he “may have” violated tax law by using tax-deductible contributions from nonprofit organizations to teach an allegedly partisan college course.

The lectures never mentioned the words “Republicans” or “Democrats,” and one entire session was spent praising FDR. Is that “partisan?” Not only has a former commissioner of the IRS has come forward and said that no tax laws were violated, but an Ethics Committee lawyer even gave approval for the class before Newt started it.

The second ‘charge’ from the committee is that, in the course of the investigation, Newt provided false information to the committee. Do you know what this “false information” is

Newt testified that the above contributions were in fact made by those organizations to “Renewing American Civilization.” He filed papers that stated the very same thing. This is never a fact that anyone was trying to hide. But one paper filed with the committee stated that those groups did not make the contributions.

Posted by: Rhinehold at November 14, 2011 5:15 PM
Comment #332006

I actually have a soft spot for Newt. In this interview, he actually comes across as an intelligent guy.

Posted by: Warped Reality at November 14, 2011 6:15 PM
Comment #332007

Warped Reality: I agree Newt is intelligent. So is Herman Cain in my opinion. Unfortunately baggage and lack of money will get the best of these two candidates most likely.

Posted by: Adam Ducker at November 14, 2011 6:20 PM
Comment #332009

Warped Reality,
Thanks for the link to the Newt interview. Good reading.

I thought one of the best moments of a recent debate came over a question about China. The rest of the clowns tossed off some stupid, uninformed opinions intended to cater to the stupid, uninformed crowd. Newt was very smart. He deferred, and directed the question towards Jon Huntsman, a former Ambassador to China. That shows leadership- an ability to delegate to the best person available, to be able to delegate under pressure, even if it means delegating to a competitor, and to do it in front of a crowd of yahoos.

Compare this with Michelle Bachmann’s comment about China in a recent debate. Bachmann says LBJ’s Great Society has “not worked, and it’s put us into the modern welfare state…If you look at China, they don’t have food stamps. They save for their own retirement security, they don’t have AFDC, they don’t have the modern welfare state, and China’s growing…”

That’s crazy on so many levels, it’s hard to even know where to begin.

By the way, four candidates declare God called on them to run for the presidency: Cain, Bachmann, Santorum, and Perry. That raises a number of issues and humorous questions…

Posted by: phx8 at November 14, 2011 6:39 PM
Comment #332011

Rhinehold: “Lots of people have cheated on their wives, sorry but that’s not a reason to say they are unfit to be president.”

Even if that were his only flaw it would still matter. We’re talking about the GOP here. Remember? Family values? Christian morals? That sort of thing…

“He was censured by the house, but that does not make one ‘guilty’.”

We can call it whatever you want to call it. Censured is a more accurate term for sure.

“…the current trend of trying to tear people down for personal reasons like this seems beyond the pale.”

I would agree except that we’re not digging up unpaid parking tickets. This is the real, known history of Newt and he has to live with it. He’s got baggage.

“And, didn’t we have several members of the current administration violate tax laws, yet stay in office and are defended by the Democrats? Double-standard?”

Let them run for the Democratic primary and see what happens. Then we’ll see if there’s a double standard. As I said above this is not about whether one is qualified for office. I’m talking in terms of viable primary candidacy. Saying he’s flawed…like everybody else…ignores just how flawed he really is.

Posted by: Adam Ducker at November 14, 2011 7:06 PM
Comment #332016

Tell me, Adam, what was he guilty of? Please, give the details, not ‘ethics violations’. I’ve pointed out that he was censured for teaching a class the ethics panel approved him to teach because one filing didn’t mention the donations provided. It was a political hunt in retaliation for his going after Jim Wright. He never received a dime out of the class, btw. And when told he could pay the fine out of his campaign funds, he said no and paid for it out of his own pocket.

If you have other information or evidence, please provide it…

The ‘baggage’ you mention is mostly make-believe, an invention by the left who was furious at him. It may mean a lot to you because you despise him, but I don’t care about him one way or another, I am just trying to deal in the facts.

What it boiled down to is that Mr. Gingrich should have consulted a tax lawyer before involving non-profit organizations in promoting and broadcasting his college course and a television program. All because their content may have been construed as political which would have endangered the tax-exempt status of the non-profit organizations. In short, if Gingrich had have sought the advice of a competent lawyer, his course would have been conducted without violating obscure and badly constructed rules.

http://brookesnews.com/070503wilson3.html

Posted by: Rhinehold at November 14, 2011 8:58 PM
Comment #332020

Phx8: “By the way, four candidates declare God called on them to run for the presidency: Cain, Bachmann, Santorum, and Perry.”

Remember that God called them to run, but did not guarantee them to win. God has a sense of humor, I think. I’d imagine he probably enjoys watching these nut cases make fools of themselves as much as I do.

Rhinehold: “Tell me, Adam, what was he guilty of? Please, give the details…”

You seem to think I’m stuck on the term “guilty” when I’ve already said censured is a more accurate term which you and I both agree over. Try to keep up.

Rhinehold: “The ‘baggage’ you mention is mostly make-believe, an invention by the left who was furious at him.”

Mostly, except for the things that are completely true and verified, of course: Three marriages, multiple instances of marriage infidelity, censured in US Congress, resigned in shame due to political pressure from his own party. Every single thing is true. They’re not all bad on their own but as a whole they make a pretty lousy package. That he’s leading the polls shows how hard up conservatives are to find leadership.

Posted by: Adam Ducker at November 14, 2011 11:19 PM
Comment #332028

Well, phx8, sometimes when God wants to punish people, he just allows them to do what they wanted to do in the first place.

I do find it rather funny that they’ve brought Gingrich back. I know Rhinehold seems to have a soft spot for him, but he should realize that he’s in a minority on this one. He’s fairly good at concatenating the latest anti-Liberal buzzwords (I was personally astounded at how many he got into one quote), but the guy does have a very dubious background. Not to mention the fact that he’s carrying around baggage greater than Princess Vespa’s matched luggage.

Many Democrats, at this point, are simply breaking out the popcorn. They find it very amusing how Republicans are trying and testing each one of their candidates, yet ultimately seem to be on the road to choosing somebody a majority of them don’t like by simple default!

The problem for Republicans is that their ideological requirements and their refusal to compromise or seriously support compromisers has them stuck trying to push primary candidates whose general election prospects against Obama are even now rather dim.

Of course, they’re not stupid, so Republican voters, despite their objections to their alternatives, are finding themselves obligated to support folks who haven’t self-destructed. Even so, it’s amusing to me that despite their best efforts, they’re likely going to end up nominating a Moderate Massachussetts Republican who was the architect of the program that the much hated mandate of the Democrat’s Healthcare Reform bill was based on.

Democracies have a way of punishing folks who won’t compromise, won’t work and play well with others. The Republicans have tried to bluff and bluster past being too far to the right, past what is objectionable or stupid to say, and they’re finding that they can’t get away with as much as they thought they could.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at November 15, 2011 7:57 AM
Comment #332030

“Democracies have a way of punishing folks who won’t compromise, won’t work and play well with others.”

Yes - we recall this happened in 2010.

Posted by: C&J at November 15, 2011 8:52 AM
Comment #332034

C&J-
You can say that if you like. However, your side has successfully painted itself as the less compromisising side, so I think you’re going to get the brunt of that punishment.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at November 15, 2011 12:37 PM
Comment #332044

O I don’t know Stephen, Reid and the Democrat controled Senate have shown they don’t want to have anything to do with the Republican controled house. When Democrats controled everything the only compromise they wanted was my way or no way.

Posted by: KAP at November 15, 2011 4:52 PM
Comment #332055

Why is the left so concerned about who runs on the Republican ticket? If they’re all so easy to beat in a general election, and Obama is so loved for his great policies, I don’t see why the left worries about who Republicans run.

Posted by: Mike at November 15, 2011 6:58 PM
Comment #332063

KAP-
We control the White House and the Senate, and the Republicans the Senate alone. Were the voters high on something when they set things that way?

When exactly do Democrats get to promote their agenda to a greater degree, compromise less? Republicans claimed a mandate on far thinner terms than that, and in fact claim some kind of mandate to do what they want, even though they only control one of the three bodies required to pass legislation.

Republicans, meanwhile, won’t even let the debates end, or legislation come to up and down votes, despite having pitched a mighty hissy fit about Democrats not approving each and every one of their judge nominees.

You’re basically playing the victims here because people aren’t handing you just about everything you want, despite the fact that they’ve got the political power to do otherwise, and constituents with less patience than ever for them doing otherwise.

Mike-
Do we sound especially worried? No, not really. We’re just shocked at how crappy and bizarre your line-up’s become.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at November 15, 2011 10:47 PM
Comment #332065

Stephen,

The Democrats controlled the Senate, House and Presidency from 2009 to 2011. Sorry to break it to you but we saw what they did then.

They also controlled the House and Senate during the economic issues that brought us to where we are today, their direct mis-action can be traced to exacerbating the problems to the degree that occurred.

Funnily enough you want to blame Republicans for what happened when they controlled the Presidency and Senate but not the House, just as the Democrats control today, yet now want to blame the Republicans for the same situation?

Both parties are running this country into the ground by grabbing more and more power from the people to use against them furthering their authoritarian agenda…

Posted by: Rhinehold at November 15, 2011 11:05 PM
Comment #332066

Story coming out… Newt made between $1.6 and $1.8 million in consulting fees for Freddie Mac.

Posted by: phx8 at November 16, 2011 12:35 AM
Comment #332067

Rhinehold-
My argument is simple, but it’s factually simple: the bad mortgages, and the housing market that made them profitable had already peaked and started its decline before Democrats got in. That housing bubble is the fundamental engine of economic destruction, because of all the derivative-type assets that were built on top of it.

Your argument is a Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc fallacy, one that assumes that just because the **** hit the fan in 2008, after the Democrats had barely been in their a year and three-quarters, that it must be the Democrats who are to blame. That’s all you got.

Meanwhile, I’ve published numbers that show that GSEs Republicans are blaming for this were in decline as the bubble reached it’s greatest heights, that non-bank lenders mainly unaccountable to the CRA that Republicans also blame dominated the market, and that most mortgages originated in 2006 came from them by a wide margin, somewhere around 80 percent market share.

Meanwhile, what are the banks doing being in trouble over this? Why are the hedge funds and investment banks doing, being in trouble over this.

There’s a whole range of financial activity that went on behind the scenes to support the glut in the financial markets, stuff that would have been illegal if it hadn’t been for Conservative lead legislation that cut constraints to Wall Street’s ability to take large risks and cover it up so investors wouldn’t get spooked. They were taking mortgage securities full of bad risks, slapping derivative-type insurance on it, and using that hedge to justify low-risk AAA ratings. Without the broad AAA market, there would not have been the number of customers necessary to sell off the bad mortgages so mortgage lenders could hand off the bad risks they were taking.

In other words, without a deregulated Wall Street, Market forces would have put on the brakes for the bubble much sooner, sparing us the panic ande everything.

Market forces, which Republicans and Libertarians trust so much to do the job of policing the system, preventing its self-destruction, utterly failed because we more or less made it legal to con investors on the value of their investments. Sure, that meant more economic activity in the short term, but long term it meant that a whole section of our economy was basically just an illusion created by a fraud.

And that didn’t just magically appear two years before December 2008, thus sparing Republicans any blame for whatever happened. So, I’m afraid I won’t be buying into this farcical, fallacious attempt that irresponsible conservatives have cooked up to scapegoat the Democrats for a economic downturn their policies didn’t lead to. I’m afraid I’m going to stick with the facts I have at hand.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at November 16, 2011 7:04 AM
Comment #332072

If I’m not mistaken Stephen, Rhinehold said that BOTH parties are running this country into the ground. I have to agree with that statement. We have a President who’s leadership is NON EXSISTENT, and a congress that can’t get it together. Democrats had their shot at getting things together for 2 years but failed, and I know your going to blame Republicans and say they filibustered everything but that excuse is old. Republicans in the house have been in control for less then a year and the cry is where are the jobs but they have to contend with a hostile Senate and President. IMO neither party is doing what they were elected to do as is reflected in poll numbers. So each party has had their 15 minutes of fame and both have failed miserably. I’m affraid that this next election cycle is going to be more of the same in choosing the lesser of the evils.

Posted by: KAP at November 16, 2011 9:28 AM
Comment #332074

KAP I agree it will be the lesser of two evils that we elect. It has been that way for years now. But once again if we get pass the lack of leadership nonsense the repubs spew about Obama we will see he is the lesser of two evils, unfortunately.

For starters we all seem to forget who was the leader when Bin Laden was finally caught. Yet that is not considered leadership by repubs. Not to mention he has signed into law the Gingrich health care reform plan, that we now call Obamacare, that repubs were unable to get passed since Clinton was president.

The repubs and dem conservatives have a lock on the Congress today, both houses, when it comes to getting anything passed. These conservatives choose to put ideology over country and therefore cannot be lead, despite 3 years of compromising, to the point of alienating his base, by Obama. That is not a failure in leadership it is a failure of character by conservatives in Congress. Point in case is the “super” congress that is knotted up as the deadline approaches. We have over 200 representatives who have signed a pledge of allegiance to a group headed by what many conservatives believe is a known Muslim extremist. This pledge conflicts with the oath of office they took.

Posted by: j2t2 at November 16, 2011 11:51 AM
Comment #332075

J2, There has been NO leadership from both sides. Obama had his 15 minutes of glory in the Bin Laden thing but right now that is all forgotten. Right now it is the economy and jobs which neither side has a clue on how to fix.

Posted by: KAP at November 16, 2011 12:42 PM
Comment #332081

Yes we voters do seem to forget the good and remember the bad. In fact this forgetfulness has run amok in conservative circles judging by the right wing talking points regarding Obama’s leadership this past 3 years. We all forget how close the world came to another depression. We like to consider this financial meltdown as just another recession of the business cycle. As we know it is not, and the steps taken by both the current and previous administration to avert a more serious depression helped to prevent just that a much more serious depression. That to me is leadership.
Of course we don’t want to give credit for this either as it is a “what have you done for me today” mentality many conservatives like to use to perpetrate the leaderless myth.

As far as jobs I agree with you. Both local and state governments continue to shed jobs as fast as the private sector adds jobs yet we complain about a jobless recovery. Many of us are still paying down debt from the past borrowing binge we went on, while at the same time complaining about the lack of leadership we suffer when it comes to getting the economy rolling. Many conservatives still tell us it is the uncertainty created by the Obama administration, yet we know it is just another myth.

Should Newt or Romney get elected what kind of leadership would they be demonstrating in repealing the same health care reform they were so instrumental in creating? Flip flop and a lack of character IMHO.

But in our form of government it is the people that are not leading, and hence the problem. We blame the politician for our lack of leadership, don’t we?

Posted by: j2t2 at November 16, 2011 2:33 PM
Comment #332093

j2, As far as Romney filp floping, he, over all the candidates has first hand experience in HCR. He knows what is wrong with and what needs to be changed in the HCR bill. The people did lead in this area but the politicians where the ones not listening. We all wanted HCR but not the reform they were giving us. As far as Obama’s leadership, NON EXISTENT, he may be a good community organizer and campaigner but leader NO especially in the position he is in as President. If passing the buck is the sign of a good leader he is #1.

Posted by: KAP at November 16, 2011 5:33 PM
Comment #332095

Despite all the evidence to the contrary you still claim Obama cannot lead the country? Is there any dem or liberal or socialist whatever you like that could meet the higher expectations you have of dem presidents?

The actor Reagan had the most corrupt administration in modern history. The cheerleader GWB actually went to war and lowered taxes at the same time. The actor Reagan used his unitary executive theory to increase presidential powers. The cheerleader GWB’s idea of health care reform was an unfunded medicare program that put the country deep into debt. Yet these guys are considered leaders? Go figure.

Posted by: j2t2 at November 16, 2011 6:02 PM
Comment #332098

j2, IMO Hilliary would have been better, Bill was a good President and LEADER. Most of the Democrats that have been President in my lifetime have been good leaders except for Johnson and Carter. Obama & Carter two peas in a pod. Loved Kennedy was to young for Truman.

Posted by: KAP at November 16, 2011 6:24 PM
Comment #332100

I guess it must be the management style Obama has that is so much different from his predecessor that rankles you guys on the right KAP. I guess if you liked the “all hat” style of GWB and thought that was leadership I can understand why you would think the more intelligent approach used by Obama would lead you into mistakenly thinking it was a lack of skill.

I have tried to single out some specific events that would cause one to doubt the abilities of Obama but cannot think of any. Perhaps you could identify specifics rather than the talking point statements we see here all the time. The world leaders seem to have a good deal of respect for Obama, much more so than GWB.

To think that any of these presidential candidates of the repubs would be a better leader is quite a stretch IMHO. We hear Romney is “leader” but he spends so much time flip flopping on issues and positions, that he needs to believe to be electable by the repubs, that his leadership qualities haven’t stood out. In fact just the opposite, he follows the pack to be popular as most politicians are want to do. Where is the leadership in that?

I guess you guys on the right still believe the myth of the businessman as leader we have heard so much about. But after GWB even you guys should realize anybody can be a “leader” when it is a corporate dictatorship you are running. It takes a real leader to run a country when the people you work for have a say in your job.

Perhaps that is why the community organizer talking point is so popular with those on the right, it isn’t a business executive position, and the perception is it is therefore unworthy. The reality however is you guys elected a businessman in GWB and it didn’t work out at all, in fact worse president ever comes to mind.

Posted by: j2t2 at November 16, 2011 9:09 PM
Comment #332101

j2, enlighten me on when I praised GWB or any of the Republican candidates? He left HCR to Reid and Pelosi which was supposed to be his signature legislation, His handiling of Iran, his handiling of the economy, all fail to show any kind of Presidential leadership.

Posted by: KAP at November 16, 2011 9:53 PM
Comment #332103

Reid and Pelosi were the congressional leaders responsible for their respective house of Congress, why would he interfere with their jobs when he was elected president. The term Obamacare did not come form him. What about Iraq? The economy? What specifically did you expect him to do that he didn’t?

Iraq has drug on for years, but the end date was set by the previous administration, he followed through with it what’s the problem with that?

Posted by: j2t2 at November 16, 2011 10:46 PM
Comment #332104

j2 It was his signature legislation. It was by his lead it should have been written. What about Iraq? Did he have to follow what the previous administration did? Or could he have had some of his own ideas. The economy a trillion dollar stimulus for what? 9% unemployment, the stimulous really worked didn’t it. Our southern border, that’s a real joke. Sueing states for doing the job his people should have been doing and that goes for previous administrations. Like I said before Hilliary would have been better.

Posted by: KAP at November 16, 2011 11:46 PM
Comment #332108

KAP-
If you’re so balanced, why are most of your talking points verbatim Republican points? I mean, what’s the point of being independent if you’re going to take Republican points at face value?

You might as well admit that however they fall short, you still prefer voting for a Republican. All too often, being independent becomes a reason not to take care of the problems of those you vote for, and still leaves you open to manipulations in the media that keep you voting the same ways, rather than seeking out your own individual picture of things and voting accordingly. It’s like being Republican, only minus the pull in the party.

Better yet, why not get some folks to break free of the FOXNews conformity, and get some people inside and outside of Washington who realize how far off the tracks their policy has gotten? However imperfect the Democrats are, their outside movement is bringing fresh blood and ideas in. The Republican’s movement is just reinforcing it’s worst tendencies.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at November 17, 2011 8:27 AM
Comment #332110

Stephen, I don’t like Obama and his policies, I don’t like Pelosi or Reid and their handiling of congress. I liked Clinton when he was President at least he had executive experience in running a state. The problem is your side had 2 people running who would make History if elected to the Presidency, unfortunitly your side picked the wrong history maker at least Hilliary had Bill who did have the experience to share.

Posted by: KAP at November 17, 2011 10:44 AM
Comment #332111

Your right Stephen I would rather vote for a republican or good independent then Obama.

Posted by: KAP at November 17, 2011 10:46 AM
Comment #332112
It was his signature legislation. It was by his lead it should have been written.

It was the dems in general that wanted health care reform KAP. The dems controlled the House and Senate. The leaders in the House and Senate moved the process through each chamber. The Administration worked behind the scenes and helped reach a consensus as they should have done. It was a fine display of leadership not bully pulpit politics.

What about Iraq? Did he have to follow what the previous administration did? Or could he have had some of his own ideas.

Why not? 75% of the American people wanted our troops out of Iraq. “If it ain’t broke don’t fix it” leadership served us well in this case. Being a leader is much more than going into a situation and making changes for the sake of making changes KAP.


The economy a trillion dollar stimulus for what? 9% unemployment, the stimulous really worked didn’t it.

It did what it was designed to do. It wasn’t the WWII miracle cure it was the band-aid that kept the recession from being a depression. Remember it was a combination of tax cuts and spending, a compromise with conservatives. Leaders compromise with the opposition to get legislation passed. Now if you think Obama should have single-handily went into Congress and wrestled a WWII type short term package out of them then perhaps it is you who have set what the conservatives were calling the “Messiah” up for failure. Remember it was conservatives by and large calling him the Messiah not him.

Our southern border, that’s a real joke. Sueing states for doing the job his people should have been doing and that goes for previous administrations.

Suing states for overstepping their authority is the job of the administration. Obama’s administration did the proper thing KAP. Obama upheld the oath of office as was his duty. This actual shows the leadership abilities of Obama.

From Wiki:
“In 2009, Chief Justice John G. Roberts, while administering the oath to Barack Obama, incorrectly recited part of the oath. Roberts prompted, “That I will execute the Office of President to the United States faithfully.” Obama stopped at “execute,” and waited for Roberts to correct himself. Roberts, after a false start, then followed Obama’s “execute” with “faithfully”, which results in “execute faithfully”, which is also incorrect. Obama then repeated Roberts’ initial, incorrect prompt, with the word “faithfully” after “United States”.[12][13] The oath was re-administered the next day by Roberts at the White House.[14][15]”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oath_of_office_of_the_President_of_the_United_States

Posted by: j2t2 at November 17, 2011 11:06 AM
Comment #332114

So let me get this straight j2, the stimulous did what it was designed to do and by Obama’s own words that was to keep unemployment from going over 8% and provide shovel ready jobs. So did he lie or was that just a mistake seeing how unemployment went above 9% and by Obama’s own words the shovel ready jobs were not so shovel ready. Obama’s administration sued the state of Arizona for doing the job that the Federal government was supposed to do but were NOT doing, IMO the state of Arizona should be suing the federal government for not doing their job and that is not protecting their citizens. Yes we wanted out of Iraq but is the region going to be stable when we depart. Other governments like Obama, I’ll bet Israel will debate that with you and some of the other countries think Obama is a joke. As far as the oath of office yes Roberts made a goof but you failed to mention that in 1909 Fuller misquoted the oath to Taft, 1929 Taft garbled the oath to Hoover, 1941 Cropley dropped the Bible during Roosevelts oath, 1945 Stone, Truman, 1965 Warren, Johnson, so j2 Roberts wasn’t the only one who ever made a mistake with the oath of office for President.

Posted by: KAP at November 17, 2011 12:30 PM
Comment #332118
So let me get this straight j2, the stimulous did what it was designed to do and by Obama’s own words that was to keep unemployment from going over 8% and provide shovel ready jobs. So did he lie or was that just a mistake seeing how unemployment went above 9% and by Obama’s own words the shovel ready jobs were not so shovel ready.

When those words were spoken the available data was what the stimulus was designed to remedy if memory serves KAP. The situation changed and so did the end results as the real data was worse than anticipated. However the recession remained a recession and didn’t go into a depression KAP. As far as the shovel ready jobs some were some were not. Anyway this was not a failure in leadership as many on the right like to say. It wasn’t a home run but it wasn’t a strike out either.

Obama’s administration sued the state of Arizona for doing the job that the Federal government was supposed to do but were NOT doing, IMO the state of Arizona should be suing the federal government for not doing their job and that is not protecting their citizens.

But the fact remains it is the job of the federal government not state governments, agreed? The states overstepped it’s bounds the feds did what they were supposed to do. If Arizona would sue perhaps….


Yes we wanted out of Iraq but is the region going to be stable when we depart.

What does this have to do with leadership? The fact is Iraq will need to become self reliant and the USA will need to quit meddling in things we can’t afford. If our previous administration would have paid for the war as we went along our deficit wouldn’t be so bad today. Obama showed good leadership to get us out of there on schedule.


Other governments like Obama, I’ll bet Israel will debate that with you and some of the other countries think Obama is a joke.

Not as many as thought that of the previous administration. The fact is Israel needs to grow up as well.


As far as the oath of office yes Roberts made a goof but you failed to mention that in 1909 Fuller misquoted the oath to Taft, 1929 Taft garbled the oath to Hoover, 1941 Cropley dropped the Bible during Roosevelts oath, 1945 Stone, Truman, 1965 Warren, Johnson, so j2 Roberts wasn’t the only one who ever made a mistake with the oath of office for President.

True KAP, but we were talking about Obama so Roberts was pertinent the rest not so much.

Posted by: j2t2 at November 17, 2011 2:40 PM
Comment #332120

j2, If an illegal murdered your friend or a loved one who do you blame the state or the federal law enforcement? We also weren’t talking about Obama’s oath of office, what does that have to do with leadership? The stimulous situation changed so by your own admission Obama stuck his foot in his mouth and a good leader should antisipate the what if’s. Same thing with withdrawing from Iraq, the what if’s come into play big time and a good leader always weighs in on the what if’s.

Posted by: KAP at November 17, 2011 3:22 PM
Comment #332121
If an illegal murdered your friend or a loved one who do you blame the state or the federal law enforcement?

I would blame the illegal immigrant. Although it is irrelevant to which entity has the duty to control immigration. Certainly you don’t want each state to have different immigration policies do you? Either way what the administration did showed good leadership IMHO.

We also weren’t talking about Obama’s oath of office, what does that have to do with leadership?

But we were KAP. It is a federal obligation to reign in states that run amok as Arizona did in this instance, Obama did his duty which is part of being a leader. He swore to uphold the constitution amongst other things.


The stimulous situation changed so by your own admission Obama stuck his foot in his mouth and a good leader should antisipate the what if’s.

So using this logic the financial meltdown should never have happened, right? Had GWB “anticipated the what if’s” there would have been no need of a stimulus plan. But since he didn’t and there was do you think Obama could have gone to Congress and said “hey guys add 20% to this bill just in case”?
Bare in mind KAP that this bill was passed into law just days after Obama’s inauguration as President. The country was in crisis and something needed to be done, would you rather he waited until all the information was available? Why are you questioning Obama’s leadership on this issue and not the other players? Do you think this was all Obama?

Same thing with withdrawing from Iraq, the what if’s come into play big time and a good leader always weighs in on the what if’s.

Continue to spend money, in Iraq, like a repub? It seems to me the decision to proceed with troop withdrawal was a sound one when you consider our ability to continue funding the effort there and the need for our troops.

You guys on the right seem to be picking at straws when it comes to the whole “lack of leadership” issue. When it gets to “the what if’s come into play big time and a good leader always weighs in on the what if’s” perhaps it is time to realize it is not an issue but a want. Which is wrong headed IMHO, to want the president to be a bad leader so bad you would use such slim pickings as what we have seen here.

Posted by: j2t2 at November 17, 2011 4:45 PM
Comment #332133

j2, Irrelevant? You say the feds have sole jurisdiction on immigration but you state it is irrelivant who has the duty to control it. I agree the illegal is at fault but so are the feds when they should have been preventing his entry into the U.S. IMO I don’t care what policies each state has reguarding immigration as long as they follow what the fed law states. Arizona didn’t run amok they just acted while the feds played politics and did the job the feds wouldn’t. I never said the financial meltdown would not have happened. I stated Obama did a piss poor job of fixing the economic problem. We were in a crisis but better thought may have been the better way to go instead of just throwing a Trillion dollars away. We have Military bases all over the world, why not one in Iraq? Maybe then Iran would think twice about doing something stupid. Picking at straws, tell me that when an illegal robs, rapes or kill someone close to you. The what if’s are not a want in todays world they are a what could and what might happen and a good leader weighs in those issues befor making a decission.

Posted by: KAP at November 17, 2011 6:47 PM
Comment #332145
j2, Irrelevant? You say the feds have sole jurisdiction on immigration but you state it is irrelivant who has the duty to control it. I agree the illegal is at fault but so are the feds when they should have been preventing his entry into the U.S. IMO I don’t care what policies each state has reguarding immigration as long as they follow what the fed law states. Arizona didn’t run amok they just acted while the feds played politics and did the job the feds wouldn’t.

KAP The point was the supposed lack of leadership shown by Obama because his administration sued the state of Arizona. His administration did the right thing as far as the lawsuit yet according to you it showed a lack of leadership, I disagree.


I never said the financial meltdown would not have happened. I stated Obama did a piss poor job of fixing the economic problem. We were in a crisis but better thought may have been the better way to go instead of just throwing a Trillion dollars away.

I know you didn’t say that KAP, but your logic said it for you. The stimulus was put together with the help of a bi partisan group of elected representatives. The stimulus was 36% tax cuts was that money thrown away? The stimulus was created to:

1. To preserve and create jobs and promote economic recovery.
2. To assist those most impacted by the recession.
3. To provide investments needed to increase economic efficiency by spurring technological advances in science and health.
4. To invest in transportation, environmental protection, and other infrastructure that will provide long-term economic benefits.
5. To stabilize State and local government budgets, in order to minimize and avoid reductions in essential services and counterproductive state and local tax increases.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Recovery_and_Reinvestment_Act_of_2009

Where is the lack of leadership here? Because we may not like the spending to do this it worked to stave off a depression.


We have Military bases all over the world, why not one in Iraq? Maybe then Iran would think twice about doing something stupid.

The Iraq’s don’t want us there. The offer was made the deal was refused by Iraq. Are you suggesting we subvert the will of the people of Iraq and force ourselves upon them? I don’t see a lack of leadership here, which of course is the point of this discussion.


Picking at straws, tell me that when an illegal robs, rapes or kill someone close to you. The what if’s are not a want in todays world they are a what could and what might happen and a good leader weighs in those issues befor making a decission.

Once again the illegal is irrelevant to the discussion at hand KAP. The issue is the lack of leadership for suing the state of Arizona. The Obama administration did the right thing.

It seems to me the whole lack of leadership thing is a ruse perpetrated upon the conservatives by the movement leaders. It has little merit ans is more a myth than a reality. The double standard used by conservatives to reach these illogical conclusions we have been discussing makes this a non issue, a political ploy, propaganda used to confuse the movement followers into believing they have a case. They don’t based upon your “proof” discussed here.

Posted by: j2t2 at November 18, 2011 9:11 AM
Comment #358020

Shop for your mens, women or youth NFL Jerseys from the Ultimate NFL Store, we guarantee all you have to worry about is keeping your eye on the ball.
Custom San Diego Chargers Jersey
Custom San Francisco 49ers Jersey
Custom Seattle Seahawks Jersey
Custom St. Louis Rams Jersey
Custom Tennessee Titans Jersey
Custom Washington Redskins Jersey

Posted by: NFL Custom Jerseys at December 4, 2012 12:38 AM
Comment #362555

The timing was Coach Factory Outlet no expectation that the investigators would find anything. When the archaeologists initially checked city Coach Factory Outlet records, they were unable to find any indication that a building had been on the propery before Coach Outlet Online 1886. We’re ecstatic about what we found,” said Robert K. Antozzi, the city’s coordinator for the courthouse Coach Online Outlet project. “Now we have a major expansion of the story of Fredericksburg, and that’s really exciting.Shortly Coach Factory Online into the dig, the crew discovered a sandstone cellar wall — a clue that something was preserved below. When Coach Outlet Store Online they dug at another location, it found a brick wall flush against the sidewalk on Princess Anne Street, Coach Outlet Store which runs through downtown. fighting organizations and to funnel both lethal and nonlethal military Coach Factory Stores aid to the rebels. It should unite units of the Free Syrian Army, various militias and brigades in each Coach Handbags Outlet city and large groups of defectors. I certainly get the fact that your daddy’s Republican Party cannot Coach Factory Store win relying singularly on white voters and evangelicals alone as critical as I believe those voters Coach Factory Online are to a majority coalition,” Mr. Reed said. “The good news for conservatives is there are many of Coach Outlet those who have not always felt welcome in our ranks who share our values.This is a once-in-a-lifetime Coach Factory Outlet chance,” said Mr. Kiser, 53, as Brynn Stewart, the project manager, nodded beside him. With the project Coach Outlet Store Online paused, the team raced to document what they concluded was the basement of a building set afire shortly Coach Outlet Online after the Battle of Fredericksburg. The timing was opportune because the battle’s 150-year anniversary is in December, and Fredericksburg has Coach Outlet been preparing to mark the sesquicentennial.

Posted by: Coach Factory Online at March 10, 2013 7:02 AM
Comment #363158

Cambridge Satchel Sale in UK Cambridge Satchel Co.Here,the most fashion styles Cambridge satchels could be found in our Cambridge Satchel outlet.Young people can always order the newest style Cambridge Satchel and Cambridge bag here.We’re professional in this line for years, so,we can provide you the best Cambridge satchel leather for any purpose.If you’re a super fans of Cambridge Satchel bag,then,you’re lucky here,as 2013 Cambridge backpack and Cambridge satchel classic Sale with Free Delivery Now.

Posted by: cambridge backpack at March 21, 2013 9:41 PM
Comment #363188

2013 Cambridge Satchel Sale in UK Cambridge satchel outlet.Here,all kinds of cambridge satchel could be found,such as Cambridge satchel backpack and classic Cambridge satchel.Don’t need to go to your local Cambridge store now,as all the Cambridge satchels Sale online.Any of the Cambridge bag we offered,was designed by Cambridge satchel company. By the way,we offer Free Worldwide Delivery!

Posted by: cambridge satchel sale at March 21, 2013 11:07 PM
Post a comment