Democrats & Liberals Archives

Gingrich Makes South Carolina a Fight

Last week I pointed out Romney had not bounced after New Hampshire. The other candidates got bounces but he had not. Finally when the bounce wore off for others and as Huntsman dropped out, Romney started to creep up again in the polls. Meanwhile Gingrich has surged in a huge way.

Both Gingrich and Romney are within the margin of error of being tied. Romney still has a slight advantage but if other polls come out showing Gingrich ahead that advantage could evaporate quickly.

Internal polls for Romney must have shown Gingrich surging days ago because Romney has been on the attack again for a few days. Now external polls have caught on and there is a lot of buzz about the race.

Gingrich's performance in the debate couldn't have hurt him in the state. He was tossing big chunks of red meat to the South Carolina conservative crowd the whole night. I was very impressed with his performance.

Now Perry is out of the race and endorsing Gingrich. This was a long time coming for the Perry camp but I don't know why they stayed in as long as they did. Maybe they just wanted to outlast at least Jon Huntsman.

Everything is falling in Gingrich's direction now it seems. The South Carolina vote is just 2 days away. But can Gingrich still make a difference in the race? Yes he can. If he wins South Carolina it could boost him going into Florida. Ten days may not be enough to erode Romney's solid lead in Florida but I'd like to see how Gingrich manages things if he wins this weekend.

It's interesting to me that the first 3 votes in the primary season could have 3 different 2nd place winners. This is part of Gingrich's problem. He could never get the anti-Romney voters to come completely over to his side.

Also if Santorum has his way the 3 first place winners may be Santorum, Romney, and Gingrich, in that order. If that was true that would certainly put a damper on Romney's projection of inevitability.

Romney still has all the money and is in the driver's seat but it's clear he's not won over enough voters yet. He's still got a few more parts to win over before then. If he stays ahead in South Carolina and Florida it's over but he's got to be sweating this next race for the first time so far in the primary.

Posted by Adam Ducker at January 19, 2012 1:18 PM
Comments
Comment #334774

Adam,
It’s certainly entertaining. Pass the popcorn! Caught a few minutes of Rush Limbaugh this morning. Apparently everything is Obama’s fault. And the MSM. I’m not sure how. Rush was upset because he can see the writing on the wall, but what he said didn’t make sense. Newt’s second wife came out of the woodwork and did an interview on ABC that recapped what she has said in the past, and in case anyone wasn’t sure, it has been re-confirmed: Newt Gingrich is a loathesome little toad. Meanwhile, Romney is sinking under the wait of Bain Capital. It’s always nice to see that what goes around, comes around. Now it turns out Santorum won IA after all, but no one cares because he is such a weak candidate, totally lame. I mean, how bad does it have to be, when you make Gingrich and Romney look preferable? Yikes.

So Romney and Gingrich are lobbing shells at one another, and no one even bothers with Santorum, which is about as profoundly disrespectful as it can get. No one give Ron Paul the time of day either, but Paul will extract his revenge. It just that much more likely he will run an independent camapaign, or at any rate, refuse to support the GOP presidential candidate.

Posted by: phx8 at January 19, 2012 2:43 PM
Comment #334775

It would be a little less interesting to me if there were Democrats to watch polls for. Since I’m just on the sidelines though it gives more time for drama.

Posted by: Adam Ducker at January 19, 2012 3:12 PM
Comment #334776

Very true. There’s just not much happening with the Democrat’s side of things this cycle. I’m in Oregon, so the Democratic senators are shoe-ins. There is a local race in the district where I live to fill Wu’s seat, but since this is a solidly Democratic District, there’s just not much drama.

It reminds me a little of the 1996 election, Clinton v Dole. This one is more interesting because the GOP candidates are so bad that they’re entertaining, but still, the outcome is not hard to foresee: a competent incumbent with the economic wind at his back will smoke the GOP sacrificial offering.

Posted by: phx8 at January 19, 2012 3:18 PM
Comment #334779


Newts S.C supporters seem to be impressed that his escapades make Clinton look like an overrated armature.

I’ve heard that Romney is furious because he thought he had already knocked the Newt down. His supper pact is going to attack hard in Florida with Jabba the Newt commercials.

I’m 50/50 on voting for Obama. Give me a progressive to vote for and he is toast as far as I’m concerned. We need to back this juggernaut up some instead of running it at a slower pace.

Posted by: jlw at January 19, 2012 5:15 PM
Comment #334781

Newt needs to embrace the civil war language like Perry did. Maybe that will be part of their agreement for endorsement. South Carolina loves that. It goes good with Newt’s racist views about minorities.

Posted by: Adam Ducker at January 19, 2012 5:35 PM
Comment #334782


“If I had to vote in South Carolina, in order to keep this thing going, I’d vote for Newt.”— Sarah Palin.

Posted by: jlw at January 19, 2012 6:40 PM
Comment #334784

I have nothing much against Newt, but he doesn’t have the temperament to be president. This is important. Oliver Wendel Holmes said that FDR was a man with a second class intellect but a first class temperament. For leadership, “book learning” intelligence, which Newt has, is less important that leadership intelligence. That is also why Reagan was better than Carter, who was probably one of the smartest presidents. Ironically the other really smart guy was Nixon, who lack (shall we say) honesty intelligence.

Anyway, I would suffer cognitive dissonance voting for Newt, but I would if it was him against Obama. But Newt cannot beat Obama. Romney can. So my wish is that this is over as quick as possible with Romney the nominee. Let’s see.

Posted by: C&J at January 19, 2012 7:48 PM
Comment #334787


C&J, so far, Romney has only won one state and if the polls hold up, he is about to loose in another one. From 14 up to 2 down in what, 2 days?

If this goes all the way to the convention, Romney could loose on the first ballot. Then what?

The evangelicals had their shot with Mr. faith based, so if anyone deserves this nomination it is Ron Paul. Libertarians have been supporting the party for years.

Gingrich invoke the Confederacy in South Carolina? That is a darn good proposition Adam. I’m surprised Paul hasn’t moved in that direction. Romney could use those votes as well, but it might be hard for a Yankee RINO liberal to pull it off. Plus Romney hasn’t played the racist card like Gingrich and Paul.

I like the little side issues like, a woman president is not a part of God’s plan. Sorry Michele.

Posted by: jlw at January 19, 2012 8:50 PM
Comment #334789

C&J,
If no one else does it for him, Newt will self-destruct. It’s just a matter of time. And if he won’t self-destruct, remember that he doesn’t just have a skeleton in the closet-he has a whole graveyard, an Indian burial ground at that, and it’s even cursed. On a purely practical note, nothing has changed the fact that Newt does not have a good nationally organized ground campaign. Neither does Santorum. Romney does. So does Paul. In terms of a horse race, the SC primary looks exciting, but there are 47 states to go, and very few states are as extreme as SC.

Posted by: phx8 at January 19, 2012 10:30 PM
Comment #334790

All of you may be correct about Newt; but I would love to see him debate Obama. In fact, Newt said tonight he would love to debate Obama and Obama could even use the teleprompter and Newt would use history. Obama would be left stuttering for the bumbling fool tha he is.

C&J, I am disapointed in your support for a New England moderate elitist like Romney. I’m sorry, but he has nothing in common with the average American. All conservatives have to do is realize it will take a conservative to beat Obama. As much as you like Romney and say that Newt can’t beat Obama; I fear Romney cannot generate enough excitement to get people to go vote. No matter how you look at it, Romney just can’t seem to break a 30% support from Republicans. If only one conservtaive had been running against Romney, he would have already dropped out.

Posted by: TomT at January 19, 2012 10:54 PM
Comment #334791
For leadership, “book learning” intelligence, which Newt has, is less important that leadership intelligence.

Well that leaves Ron Paul for the repubs C&J, Romney’s more of a power hungry predator than a leader. His constant flip flopping demonstrates that. These slick businessman that are all sale pitch may impress those on the right but they are a far cry from “leadership intelligence” to anyone with any intelligence.

That is also why Reagan was better than Carter, who was probably one of the smartest presidents

C&J Reagan was a better con artist than Carter that is why so many conservatives fell for his line. Lets face it his best ideas were stolen from Carter,and others I’m sure, he adopted Carters people to solve the problems of the day. What he was better at was under the table deals for the hostages in Iran and illegal arms deals.

Posted by: j2t2 at January 19, 2012 10:56 PM
Comment #334793

TomT: “Obama would be left stuttering for the bumbling fool tha he is.”

Keep dreaming. Newt would go on a tirade like tonight as soon as the first serious question got asked. Obama would smirk at the side for a while before finally asking if it was alright for him to go smoke a cigarette with the Secret Service while Newt stays to finish up his whining and crying for being called out on his moral failings.

Posted by: Adam Ducker at January 19, 2012 11:37 PM
Comment #334794

TomT,
According to polls, most people thought Obama won all three debates against McCain:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election_debates,_2008

During the 2008 Democratic primary debates, Obama won the first one, according to one poll. During subsequent debates, it was generally considered to be very close between Obama and Hillary Clinton.

The debates were generally civil. The campaign between Obama and Hillary Clinton was close yet generally very clean, enough so that she later agreed to be Secretary of State in his cabinet.

Do you really think Gingrich could win in a debate with Obama? Do you really think Gingrich would appeal to a majority of voters during a debate by attacking the media? Good luck with that.

Posted by: phx8 at January 19, 2012 11:38 PM
Comment #334797


Tom T., if Gingrich were to win the nomination, in debates between he and Obama, the audience will not be filled with South Carolina conservatives that boo the mediators for asking Newt a question and no standing ovation interruptions.

One on one, we know that isn’t going to happen So, I am guessing that after the C&J Republicans beat you conservatives and you all have to eat their crow sandwiches, you and the 70% that don’t want Romney will be voting for the New England moderate elitist. Is that right?

Posted by: jlw at January 20, 2012 3:09 AM
Comment #334805

jlw, phx8, and AD: I am a conservative and I like many of the points of Ron Paul (I just find his foreign policies strange), I like Santorum for his real conservative ideas, I think Newt Gingrich is intelligent and a defender of the Constitution, but I don’t believe Romney is real. He is a typical politician who tells people what they want to hear. In short, he is a RINO. However, I would gladly vote for him if he won the primary. Obama is dangerous and as far as I’m concerned a traitor to everything America is based upon.

Concerning Obama and his debating ability; everything has changed since the 2008 election. During the 2008 election, everyone, and I mean everyone, of both parties was scared to death of being labeled a racist. America has had their time in the limelight of electing a black man. The time for “I voted for the black guy is over” and now Americans are going to be looking for someone who actually wants to help the country instead of destroying it. As a result, people were afraid to really debate. So, this time around, the gloves will be taken off and whoever wins will not be concerned that everything they say will be interpreted by the MSM as racism. Re/McCain; how could he really debate Obama? McCain had a political career that mirrored Obama’s campaign.

The real question is; which of the candidates would be the greatest threat to the bamster?

Posted by: TomT at January 20, 2012 8:47 AM
Comment #334808

TomT: “The real question is; which of the candidates would be the greatest threat to the bamster?”

The answer is Romney I believe. For all his flaws he’s running a stable campaign that hasn’t been subject to the ups and downs like the others. His focus has been trying to convince voters he’s not a flip flopping RINO and to steadily win over the anti-Romney vote. So far he’s succeeded but he could stumble a little in South Carolina.

Romney’s opponents understand his one area of strength is his business experience. That’s why the they have been exploiting his ties to so-called “vulture capitalism” in order to weaken that. If he’s the nominee you will see Obama preaching to the middle class like crazy to point out that Romney is not one of them.

Obama lived mostly as a middle class American with a ton of college debt who became wealthy only after he wrote a book. He’s consistently chosen serving his community or the public over a career that could have been lucrative as a lawyer. He’ll contrast that with Romney who was born into a wealthy political family, was well educated, and put his brains to use making money for himself and shareholders.

Bonus goes to the ads that remind dog owners that Romney strapped his dog to the roof of the car for a long road trip. Americans love to protect dogs and cats from cruelty and when they’re done they stop off at a mile long buffet where they’ll eat their weight in cows, chickens and pigs.

Gingrich has momentum but it probably won’t be enough to overcome Romney in Florida. If he was the nominee Obama would simply let Newt hang himself with his own words and his grouchy disposition. If Gingrich ever started making valid arguments for his presidency instead of feigning outrage then Obama would link Newt back to divisive politics of the 90’s and the hunting of President Clinton. They would run ads quoting Gingrich’s wives, point out his ethics violation, and his final demise as speaker. They would point out that Gingrich pretends to not be an insider, to not be one of the elite, but yet he has been and always will be a pompous, arrogant, elitist, power hungry jerk.

Bonus goes to even more ads of Newt with Pelosi and global warming. The right wing’s constant paranoia about science conspiracies can be used against Newt.

Santorum is going nowhere and could help only by dropping out and endorsing Gingrich after a South Carolina win for Newt. If Newt can’t win Florida he’s back at square one but the race is hardly over either way. Republicans who have railed against Obama’s lack of executive experience would be hypocrites for supporting Santorum anyway.

Ron Paul is the wild card. He won’t win the nomination but you can guarantee he’ll win enough delegates so that his kooky supporters disrupt the convention slightly and make a scene. It won’t matter for anything but it will be good press.

Posted by: Adam Ducker at January 20, 2012 10:01 AM
Comment #334816

Unlike the left, I, as a conservative don’t care if Romney was born with a silver or wooden spoon in his mouth. I don’t care if Gingrich had 1 wife or 10 wives, I don’t care about his ethics violations, and I don’t care if Newt is passionate about what he says. A few years ago, the left was saying about Clinton’s infidelities, “it’s about sex and who cares” and how many on the left have defended democrat ethics violators and sexual perverts; and now we are supposed to be outraged about Newt’s married life…I don’t think so! I only care that Obama is beat.

Re/Obama’s poor background; we don’t know enough about Obama’s background to make a decision. No grade transcripts and no medical records. I guarantee Newt or Romney will be vetted more than Obama ever was. Obama has a history of working as a shakedown artist in one of the most corrupt, ganster, union thug towns in America. He has no history of working any job that creates employment.

Ron Paul will use his delegates to barter a better platform, of which conservatives will be happy with. So no problem there.

What is it with you guys on the left? Your like a bunch of yappy littles terriors snapping at the heels of republican candidates. Why don’t you just set back, let the process work, and allow conservative republicans to pick the candidate; instead of telling us what you think about each one? No one gives a crap what liberals think of conservative candidates. Sorry…

Posted by: TomT at January 20, 2012 1:52 PM
Comment #334819

TomT: “I only care that Obama is beat.”

That’s you, but that’s not every conservative voter. Just wanting to beat Obama isn’t going to win you the election and you know it. Just ask President John Kerry.

“…we don’t know enough about Obama’s background to make a decision.”

Obama has released medical records and we know a great deal about his education except for his exact grades of course. It’s dishonest to list a couple of things you want to know more about in order to ignore the dozens of things we do know enough about. The idea that Obama wasn’t “vetted” is laughable.

“Obama has a history of working as a shakedown artist … He has no history of working any job that creates employment.”

Really now? Shakedown artist? I’m always amazed at how much historical revisionism takes place simply because you hate the man. This talking point started out that Obama hadn’t ever earned a paycheck in the private sector. Of course that’s not true. By now it’s morphed into “any job that creates employment” as if that means something to anyone.

“Ron Paul will use his delegates to barter a better platform, of which conservatives will be happy with. So no problem there.”

Don’t hold your breath there. If conservatives were so happy with his platform he wouldn’t be losing the primary. His nature if disruptive to the status quo but that’s not something the right really appreciates as a whole.

“Why don’t you just set back, let the process work, and allow conservative republicans to pick the candidate; instead of telling us what you think about each one?”

I’ll take this as the suggestion that you never state your opinion on Democratic primaries.

“No one gives a crap what liberals think of conservative candidates. Sorry…”

You don’t have to get nasty just because the left is enjoying this clown car primary. It’s a hoot watching the worst characters from your side battle it out for power while average conservatives sit and stare in bewilderment like a slow train wreck that might keep President Obama in office for four more years.

Posted by: Adam Ducker at January 20, 2012 3:45 PM
Comment #334828

Adam

Re Obama’s grades. I don’t care that much about them, but I suspect he did not do as well as we have been led to believe. I know that I would not want people to look at my grades, but I admit that I was stupid.

I suspect Obama was a decent student, but not remarkable. He seems intelligent and a very quick learner, but maybe a little on the intellectually lazy side. Of course, we will never know.

We know that Nixon and Carter got high grades while Reagan was a indifferent student. Truman was not even a college graduate and FDR pulled those “gentleman grades”, so we know that grades really don’t say much about the characteristic of a president.

Obama has given us plenty of reasons not to think he has what it takes for a second term. Grades are not among them.

J2t2

Liberals have never been able to settle on their preferred slander on Reagan. Either he stole all his ideas from somebody else as president or he never had a new idea. The latter accusation, although false, is closer to the truth. Reagan was a widely read man who wrote his impression and ideas down for many years before entering politics. These are now published. You can see the evolution of his thinking. Indeed, his ground truth ideas changed little from the 1950s, but that makes sense. When you get things right, why change?

Re politicians being “con men” I have come to realize that THE biggest part of leadership is the ability to create confidence. Con man refers to confidence man. The confidence man, however, is one how builds confidence that is unmerited. Reagan rebuilt confidence in America and the fundamental goodness of the American people. This was not false. I remember the malaise of the Carter times. One reason a generation of Americans is grateful to Reagan is not what he did himself, but for what he inspired us to do. Reagan became part of my life and my success. I don’t think he ever used the specific term “yes we can” but everything in his actions and behaviors said that loud and clear and it was not a mere empty slogan as it seems to be with Obama. Reagan believed in it and he believed in American, which is why Americans believed in him.

We shall not soon see his like again

Posted by: C&J at January 20, 2012 6:02 PM
Comment #334833

C&J: “I don’t care that much about them, but I suspect he did not do as well as we have been led to believe.”

What have we been lead to believe? Obama has told us he was a drug using slacker for many years but we know he got good enough grades or test scores to get into Harvard after Columbia and he graduated magna from there. I don’t know if Obama is IQ wise more or less intelligent than other presidents but we know just on his own he’s an intelligent man who has been successful at whatever he put his mind to.

The problem is the left doesn’t run from intelligence the way the right does. President Bush was one of the most educated presidents we ever had but when you run your campaign as a simple guy voters would want to have a beer with you leave yourself open to such attacks.

Posted by: Adam Ducker at January 20, 2012 8:27 PM
Comment #334835

C&J,

Whatever Obama’s academic grade history, he ended it with a bang. He graduated magna cum laude from the highest ranked law school in the US. That honor is only given to those with a cumulative GPA in the highest 10% of their graduating class. The only honor higher is summa cum laude which was not given to anyone in his graduating class.

You say that you don’t care much about his academic records. If so, then why do you keep bringing it up?

Posted by: Rich at January 20, 2012 8:36 PM
Comment #334837

“Whatever Obama’s academic grade history, he ended it with a bang. He graduated magna cum laude from the highest ranked law school in the US.”

Next stop: shakedown artist under the tutelage of Jessie Jackson and Al Sharpton; shaking down corporations for distribution of wealth purposes. So much for making the most of a “good” education. “Son, I graduated magna cum laude, and after college I began shaking down corporations, in order to create more welfare programs for the downtrodden descendents of slaves, 150 years removed”.

I love the way the left tries to make it look like Obama was a normal hard working American. Either they had nothing and have now gone hog wild spending the tax payers money on continuous vacations, golfing, and WH parties; or they had a grandiose life style in Chicago and the WH experience is simply an extension of that life style, again, at taxpayers’ expense.

Posted by: Frank at January 20, 2012 9:17 PM
Comment #334841

Frank: “I love the way the left tries to make it look like Obama was a normal hard working American.”

I certainly don’t do that. Obama looked like a fool in the 2008 primary trying to appeal to working class voters. Clinton was drinking shots and beers and Obama was tossing gutter balls. But he certainly didn’t grow up wealthy like many rich Americans.

Also, the Obama’s haven’t had more parties and bigger parties than any other Presidents have, despite what the right claims. That’s just like saying the First Lady has an unprecedented number of staff. It sounds good to you guys because you’ll believe anything that smears the Obama family but there’s no truth there.

Posted by: Adam Ducker at January 20, 2012 10:30 PM
Comment #334848

Rich

“You say that you don’t care much about his academic records. If so, then why do you keep bringing it up? “

Because it is a mystery.

I don’t think stupid people get to be president and I am sure Obama is intelligent. I just wonder why he keeps it a secret.

Posted by: C&J at January 20, 2012 11:25 PM
Comment #334854

Could be when given a written test he was excellent but in an oral, as seen in his speeches without the teleprompter not so good C&J. Just a thought.

Posted by: KAP at January 21, 2012 12:31 AM
Comment #334855

Obama got into Harvard the same way Elana Kagan got on the Supreme Court - Affirmative Action. It was skin color that got him into Harvard, just like it was skin color that got him the DNC nomination, and skin color won him the presidency.

I love these liberal Obama cheerleaders.

Obama has been given a complete an utter pass on everything he has ever done or said. The obscenely long and drawn out vetting process we are seeing now in the GOP is so destructive it’s laughable. Obama wasn’t asked a single hard question about his past or his associations and anything that might be damning indeed he refuses to release.

Adam predicts a sacrificial offering by the GOP to be smoked by the incumbent with the economic wind at his back. ROFL.

I will gladly pay the Vegas escrow fees for a private $1,000 bet that Obama loses his reelection bid. (That offer is for you Adam - to see if you will put your money where your mouth is)

Liberals have shot themselves in the foot too much by calling anyone who disagrees with Obama a racist. When debate time comes around this time, Obama will be shown to be the incompetent apologist that he is, while he and his wife life in unbelievably nauseating opulence. I recently saw over on zerohedge a CBO comparison that he and Michelle in 3 years have already spent double what Bush and his wife spent in 8 years on vacations and private travel (in tax payer dollars.) Are you f@#&ing kidding me? While he talks about Republicans being out of touch! Again, ROFL.

Mark my words, Obama’s ONLY chance is if he NEVER gets into the ring with Gingrich. He’ll let ABC, CBS, CNN, & NBC spin his chances and keep the focus negative and on the conservative ticket, while he continues living the dream.

Side bet Adam: I’ll give you two to one odds on however much money you can shake out of your neighbors piggy bank that if Obama actually debates whoever the Republican candidate ends up being at least 4 times. And I’ll pay the escrow fees on THAT bet too. Not even who wins the election, I just know that Obama cannot stand up to any level of real scrutiny and his narcissism will keep him from enduring it more than once or twice. So regardless who wins, if your guy, your “Incumbent with the economic wind at his back” has the stones to defend his record (in an environment where the teleprompter can’t answer his questions for him) at least 4 times, then you will triple however much money you can get your hands on and are willing to risk.

Standing offer Adam, either bet, or both - fees on me.

Posted by: Yukon Jake at January 21, 2012 2:55 AM
Comment #334857

C&J: “I just wonder why he keeps it a secret.”

Don’t most presidents keep it secret? Perhaps I’m wrong but weren’t President Bush’s records leaked instead of released?

Posted by: Adam Ducker at January 21, 2012 7:41 AM
Comment #334858

Yukon Jake:

“Liberals have shot themselves in the foot too much by calling anyone who disagrees with Obama a racist.”

And yet, you started your comment this way:

Obama got into Harvard the same way Elana Kagan got on the Supreme Court - Affirmative Action.

Maybe it’s time to step back and consider that it’s your actions making you appear to be racist and not simply your disagreement with Obama. Perhaps?

“Adam predicts a sacrificial offering by the GOP to be smoked by the incumbent with the economic wind at his back.”

I do think the economy will be strong enough to help Obama in November and not hurt him, but I won’t pretend Obama will waltz into a second term. It’s going to be quite a battle.

“Standing offer Adam, either bet, or both - fees on me.”

Thanks, but no thanks. First of all I don’t claim to be so certain as to want to put money on my predictions. Second, I stopped betting money after that time I bet against the White Sox in 2005.

Posted by: Adam Ducker at January 21, 2012 7:52 AM
Comment #334864

Good points Yukon Jake and to prove your points about racism; the first words out of AD’s mouth are:

“Maybe it’s time to step back and consider that it’s your actions making you appear to be racist and not simply your disagreement with Obama. Perhaps?”

But it won’t work the second time around. If you said anything against Obama in 2008, you were a racist; but we have been down that road and the % of vote showed Obama got a lot of white vote. But the voter is sick of the liberal socialist accusations of racism and this race will not be based on “I voted for the black man”. This election will be based on who has enough intelligence to get us out of the trouble, and it’s certainly not Obama. He has made things worse.

The MSM can back Obama all they want and try to make the economy look better than it is; but when gas prices go back up to $4 a gallon this Summer and nothing improves, voters will know better. Obama can spend all the tax dollars he wants; but government has never….never….created hjobs in the private sector. The housing market is still in the crapper, Obama has done his best to shut down oil production, he uses the NLRB and the EPA to shut down private interprise, has placed 100k troops on unemployment, and has said he don’t need working class white men to win the election.

Re/the teleprompter: Obama doesn’t have the ability to speak intelligently without the use of a teleprompter. If Gingrich wins the nomination; I can’t wait to hear the debate between him and Obama. As Gingrich said, “he can use the teleprompter and I will us knowledge”.

Posted by: Frank at January 21, 2012 9:21 AM
Comment #334867

Frank:

“Good points Yukon Jake and to prove your points about racism; the first words out of AD’s mouth are:”

I guess then you’ll join the ranks of those who suggest Obama wasn’t qualified for college but he got in because he was black? How dare I suggest such a belief is racist at it’s
core?

“He has made things worse.”

I recently gave a long list of economic measurements that are better now than when Obama took office. So what “things” are worse?

“Re/the teleprompter: Obama doesn’t have the ability to speak intelligently without the use of a teleprompter.”

And yet he does all the time. It must be magic? Do you type up that lie without cracking yourself up or can you keep a straight face? I know you can’t stand Obama but at least stick to reality. The President is a good public speaker both with and without a teleprompter. I guess he’s got to be great 100% of the time to be great in your book?

Posted by: Adam Ducker at January 21, 2012 10:26 AM
Comment #334875

He’s a good public Bulls—ter AD.

Posted by: KAP at January 21, 2012 3:44 PM
Comment #334876

And you guys bought it hook line and sinker in 2008. You should have picked Hillary.

Posted by: KAP at January 21, 2012 3:45 PM
Comment #334879

KAP: “And you guys bought it hook line and sinker in 2008. You should have picked Hillary.”

Well, strangely enough we’re excited to vote for him again. Opponents love to tell themselves that the other guy only won because the supporters got duped or the other guy cheated or both. No, we just like the guy and he’s been a good president.

Posted by: Adam Ducker at January 21, 2012 6:15 PM
Comment #334881

Tell that to the 54% which I am part of that think not AD.

Posted by: KAP at January 21, 2012 6:38 PM
Comment #334902

KAP: Your numbers will dwindle the more deranged and useless the Republican party appears to be. All of the sudden Obama won’t seem so bad.

Posted by: Adam Ducker at January 21, 2012 10:43 PM
Comment #334911

I thought as much with regard to the bet. I just heard tonight when Newt rocked South Carolina he was going to challenge President Obama to 7 televised national debates.

You can’t withdraw the veil of your assumptions to see that my comment about Obama getting into Harvard because he was black has nothing to do with disliking blacks. I dislike Obama for the way he has conducted himself, and for the wave of history making that swept him into office.

Do a search of my past commentary and you’ll see I had my heart, and my maximum personal contribution, set on electing Nerman Cain. A full black, who was “po before he was poor.” A man who had the audacity to call people to personal responsibility and to examine their own hearts and work ethic and you liberals “Uncled Tommed” him relentlessly because YOU in your hearts know where a black man belongs: In the Democrat party.

I dislike and disagree with Obama because of the litany of awfulness which I (and everyone I know and respect in the blogoshpere, news, on radio and on television) have watched him reign down on this country since taking Office.

Classic Freud.

You see everything through your own projected lens, which is why any criticism of a black man MUST have racism at its core, because that’s what makes sense to you.

His skin color is meaningless to me, besides being frustrating because I can’t have a meaningful conversation with any liberal because the first fifteen minutes MUST consist of my explaining that I could care less about it.

Frank’s echo is exactly correct. Making History and making the statement that America is finally color blind enough that collective hope for a man’s possibilities outweigh collective bigotry. Sure, lots of racist people are out there, but society has shifted enough that they no longer exist in great enough numbers to sway legislation and elections. Obama got in because it’s been this way for some time and he was our first real chance to prove it to the world. And a shout from the rooftops it was. The media covered up all his flaws and associations, he got a pass on everything so that we as a nation could try to put our past behind us, but all it has done is cause a flare up of resentment because now that we elected him without scrutiny, we can’t criticize him without suffering the label we tried to obliterate by electing him, and it’s BECAUSE you liberals refuse to release your imagined leverage over the black community.

Herman Cain was a candidate who understood that whether you make it or whether you break it, you have no one to blame but yourself, and god bless him for that.

You serve no one by making people dependent in the welfare state. You improve no character, you teach no men to fish, and the only direction you “progress” us to, is hell.

Posted by: Yukon Jake at January 22, 2012 1:30 AM
Comment #334921

Yukon Jake:

You may not hate all black people. You may not hate Obama simply because he’s black. That doesn’t change the fact that you suggested Obama only got into Harvard because he was black. That’s racist. You may not think so because you apparently think it’s true. You have no factual basis for that idea so where did it come from? Why would you say such a thing?

Posted by: Adam Ducker at January 22, 2012 9:50 AM
Comment #334925

No Adam it is not racist. What is racist is affirmative action, making someone choose because there isn’t enough blacks. That is racist.

Posted by: KAP at January 22, 2012 12:10 PM
Comment #334926

No Adam it is not racist. What is racist is affirmative action, making someone choose because there isn’t enough blacks. That is racist.

Posted by: KAP at January 22, 2012 12:11 PM
Comment #334935

KAP: Affirmative action is the response to nearly two centuries of racist policies in the United States. To call it racist is a bit short sighted. Every now and again I run into white people who feel like minorities have it better than they do with all their special treatment. I usually laugh my head off.

Posted by: Adam Ducker at January 22, 2012 2:29 PM
Comment #334936

KAP: Also though, we don’t even have to debate affirmative action. For folks on the right to suggest Obama got into Harvard because of affirmative action requires some sort of factual basis for the statement. I won’t hold my breath waiting on that evidence.

Posted by: Adam Ducker at January 22, 2012 2:30 PM
Comment #334939

Adam

Re affirmative action - I believe in an America were we judge people by the content of their characters and not by the color of their skins.

Re Obama - I don’t know if Obama was a beneficiary of affirmative action. If he was, it was completely against the spirit of the idea, since affirmative is the child or a white mother and an African father with absolutely no family connection to the history of slavery in the U.S. or Jim Crow. Obama was raised in an environment very far removed from the American black experience.

If affirmative action is the reaction to historical racism, Obama is not part of it.

My comment re Obama was unrelated to affirmative action. I just don’t think he is as smart as his follower think he is. It seems like Romney did better in school.

Posted by: C&J at January 22, 2012 2:53 PM
Comment #334941

C&J: “I just don’t think he is as smart as his follower think he is.”

There is almost no doubt in my mind that Obama has an above average intelligence. I would argue the same for Romney. I think Romney’s brains and his family life are two of his strengths, just like with Obama. You can’t realistically call either man stupid or accuse them of not being good husbands or fathers. Seems like the two have that covered.

C&J: “It seems like Romney did better in school.”

Maybe. He certainly went to the best schools just like Obama. But I don’t know what you base that on really. The whole purpose behind some on the right suggesting affirmative action for Obama is simply to discredit his accomplishments in life. It’s not enough for the right to just write off the accomplishments as meaningless. No, some have to take it a step further and suggest he didn’t accomplish anything at all either way.

Posted by: Adam Ducker at January 22, 2012 3:25 PM
Comment #334944

AD, I agree with C&J I think Obama is not as smart as you all think he is. He may have went to the best schools as did Bush and Bush wasn’t that smart.

Posted by: KAP at January 22, 2012 4:25 PM
Comment #334953

KAP: President Bush was one of the most educated presidents that we’ve ever had. But Bush didn’t finish in the top of his class at Harvard Law like Obama did. I think two problems plagued President Bush though. One, he was a slacker for many years, battling addiction for instance. This opened up to attacks. Two, his handlers geared his campaign toward him being a simple Texas rancher who you’d love to have a beer with. In reality he is a silver spoon fed, Ivy league educated member of the very rich and very powerful Bush family. He probably would not have won had he run as himself though so it makes sense. He had a lot of talented and well connected people around him and this is why he caught people by surprise twice.

Posted by: Adam Ducker at January 22, 2012 7:54 PM
Comment #334955


Just disagreeing with someones politics is enough to suggest they aren’t as smart as they think they are or how smart those who support the person are.

All politicians make gaffs on occasion, George Bush was king of the gaff his first four years and then he started improving rather dramatically. I remember commenting about it back then, saying that Laura must have straightened him out, gave him some lessons. But, he probably just paid more attention to what he was saying, spent more time preparing.

Posted by: jlw at January 22, 2012 8:00 PM
Comment #334956

AD How do you know he finished at the top of his class since he won’t produce his transcripts? Do you know something no one else knows or are you just taking his word?

Posted by: KAP at January 22, 2012 8:27 PM
Comment #334960

KAP: Simple. He graduated Magna Cum Laude from Harvard Law School, something they confirm on their own site. Standards are a bit tighter now for honors degrees than in 1991 but Magna places him somewhere in the top 20%. President Obama is either a dunce who worked his butt off to graduate at the top, or he’s a man of high intelligence and it came easy. The truth is somewhere in the middle. He appears to have worked hard at Harvard Law from the school’s own accounts and his honors degree verifies that.

Posted by: Adam Ducker at January 23, 2012 8:04 AM
Comment #334962

I read that to AD but all that proves is that he is a very smart Lawyer but it takes more than being a smart Lawyer to be President. He proves that he isn’t that smart in his foreign policy issues and economical issues and a few others.

Posted by: KAP at January 23, 2012 8:39 AM
Comment #334964

KAP: IQ doesn’t really work in a way where it gives you talent in just one area. The critical thinking, creativity, and reasoning skills work across the board. This is one of the reasons Obama is a talented public speaker, an accomplished author, and a successful community organizer.

I’m not saying I think Obama is some super brain or smarter than any president ever. He could be but how would we measure something like that anyway? I’m just pointing out that we have specific verifiable pieces of information about his academic career that point to a man of strong work ethic and pretty strong intelligence. This is the opposite of what his opponents try to project on him by ignoring evidence to the contrary and often blowing racial dog whistles about affirmative action and so on.

Posted by: Adam Ducker at January 23, 2012 9:10 AM
Comment #334968

AD, All them good points does NOT make a good leader. IMO Obama needs some leadership cources.

Posted by: KAP at January 23, 2012 10:41 AM
Comment #334977

KAP: Leadership is a matter of opinion of course. Is it that you think he’s a bad leader or what you just don’t like the direction he’s leading you?

I think he’s shown good leadership in some areas and fallen short in others. But nothing he has done has made me second guess my vote for him or my continued support for him in his reelection attempt.

Posted by: Adam Ducker at January 23, 2012 12:42 PM
Comment #334978

KAP: Leadership is a matter of opinion of course. Is it that you think he’s a bad leader or what you just don’t like the direction he’s leading you?

I think he’s shown good leadership in some areas and fallen short in others. But nothing he has done has made me second guess my vote for him or my continued support for him in his reelection attempt.

Posted by: Adam Ducker at January 23, 2012 12:45 PM
Comment #334983

AD, BOTH

Posted by: KAP at January 23, 2012 1:20 PM
Post a comment