Third Party & Independents Archives

Gingrich: The man who won't be President

Newt Gingrich has a lot going for him in his quest for the presidency — a famous name, plenty of inside-Washington friends, lobbyists and allies giving him untold millions in now-unlimited-by-Citizens-United money, nearly four decades of being a Washington D.C. politician for which he claims makes him and “outsider,” a lifelong history of adultery, deceit, financial opportunism, criminal convictions, ethics violations and unmitigated hypocrisy, and just the right amount of sub-dermal racism that appeals to his party’s longing-for-the-days-of-Dixie, all-white-all-the-time, faux-evangelical base.

It’s almost enough to make you forget his central handicap; the fact that he is Newt Gingrich.

Newt Gingrich -- by any stretch of logic, pragmatism and intelligence -- has a better chance of succeeding Ashton Kutcher on "Two and a Half Men" than he has to succeed Barack Obama in the White House.

Gingrich's primary problem (pun intended) isn't that his marital record is a consistent marry-cheat-marry broken record. It isn't that he's a permanently entrenched Washington politico *AND* lobbyist who thinks telling people he isn't will make it true. It isn't that he's been the architect of the most divisive political campaign strategies in history. It isn't even that he's just a bloated, two-faced, pompous ass.

No, Gingrich's problem is that he exults in being those things, but demands apologies from anyone who points out that he's being them.

Gingrich was one of the leading megaphones in the cries to have Bill Clinton hanged - or at least impeached - for having extra-marital affairs while president. And yet Gingrich dismisses any and all claims that his lifelong habitual adultery is anything less than a side-effect of his "deep passion for America." He loves the country so much that he just can't resist the desire to have sex with women other than his wife. Oh ... and the fact that Gingrich was having an affair DURING the Monica Lewinsky witch hunt ... well, you're just supposed to overlook that because he was "working for America's interests."

While berating Mitt Romney for his multi-million-dollar salary and bonuses while being CEO of a company Gingrich claims helped create the country's financial crisis, Gingrich was collecting multi-million-dollar paychecks from Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac as a "political history consultant," all the while defaming the housing market manipulation that created the country's financial crisis.

Gingrich is a demagogue, and demagogues don't get elected President of the United States. They get on TV a lot, they live opulent lifestyles, they get fat paychecks from Rupert Murdoch, they even win the occasional primary. But they don't win the presidency. Their sole function is to make the election process so dismal, distorted, redirected and unappealing that only the most extreme right-wingers or leftists will want to participate. It makes pushing all those non-political "hot buttons" like abortion, and gay marriage, and Socialist pay and benefits for teachers, and inverse tax structures, all that much easier.

The presidential historian Richard Norton Smith says demagoguery can be defined as "extremism married to flamboyance, and it helps if you have delusions of grandeur." Throw in piousness, arrogance, hypocrisy and a core being that seeks only unilateral power, self-aggrandizement and self-wealth, and you have the recipe for Newt Gingrich.

Other demagogues -- at least as, but never more exemplary of the term - have aspired to the White House and found their general election results ranging from disappointing to humiliating.

  • Alabama Gov. George Wallace, who railed against "anarchists" and "pseudo-intellectuals," championed African-American suppression and segregation, all while threatening treason charges against anti-Vietnam protesters in 1968. Wallace took down 13 percent of the vote and carried five Southern states. His effective results north, west and east of those states; el grande huevo. Gingrich said in an interview on "60 Minutes" in 1983 that Wallace's efforts were "genuinely American, just poorly executed."
  • Pat Buchanan ran in 1992 and 1996 on a platform consisting primarily of xenophobic isolationism and a personal vendetta against homosexuals and atheists, never made it to the Oval Office so he could implement his plan to build an impenetrable concrete dome over the United States of America. In a Washington Post interview in 1993, Gingrich called Buchanan "one of the great misunderstood genius visionaries of our time."
  • Reverend Jesse Jackson tried to make it to the White House riding a wave of nothing but "black power." His vote results were more of a milk-toasty transparent light grey. In a Fox News interview in 2000, Gingrich called Jackson's 1998 presidential campaign "a pathetic waste of time for people who have better things to do than to listen to another African-American preacher try to play politician."

The Republican Party, for all its claims of conservatism, family values and moral superiority, has consistently passed up actual principled conservatives in favor of corporate puppets, religious zealots and insipid candidates who were - from the onset - so patently unqualified and intellectually deficient (Alaska's half-governor, anyone?). This past week, Gingrich said Sarah Palin is "definitely, without question, one of the people I would go to for advice as president" and danced around the prospect of Palin having a cabinet position in his administration.

Throughout his career, Gingrich has done his best to ingratiate himself with the most rabid ideologues in the GOP. In 1990, he advised fellow House Republicans to refer to Democrats with such words as "sick," "pathetic," "destructive," "anti-family" and "traitors." Gingrich personally authored and at-first secretly distributed the infamous "Language" memo to Republican party officials in which words such as "welfare," "despicable" "inhuman," "anti-American" and "Communist" were not only suggested, but advised and required, as part of any Republican's public oratory when referring to Democrats. In literally every instance in which a Republican's provocative or controversial statements were factually tied back to his "Language" memo, Gingrich has harumphed and attributed the suggestion to "more evidence that the liberal media will try anything to make Republicans look bad."

For example, during a November 1994 appearance on "Nightline," Gingrich called Bill and Hillary Clinton "counter-culture McGoverniks." He first indignantly insisted that he had been misquoted, claiming that he "used the term McGovernite, not McGovernik" and dismissed the charge as "one of those things that the Washington Times picked up and therefore it's now history." When shown on-camera that at least four different newspapers, including the New York Times and the Washington Post, all quoted Gingrich as calling the Clintons "counter-culture McGoverniks," Gingrich dismissed the evidence and attributed it to "the liberal media covering for each other through selective reporting," and then declared that he wouldn't discuss that particular issue anymore during the program.

Gingrich is a poster child for bombast, vitriol and shameless invention. He says Obama "doesn't even have the courage to tell the truth about who wants to kill us" and accuses him of "pandering to radical Islam." He claimed that Obama's December 2010 approval to extend the Bush tax cuts, "the economy improved overnight ... literally." In February 2011, when shown a video clip of him making that statement and then a Wall Street Journal analysis showing an economic plummet since the tax cuts were extended, Gingrich asked his interview if he "had any questions that genuinely warranted an answer, instead of liberal tricks with charts and graphs."

There is no claim too inflammatory, reckless or implausible for Gingrich to make, and always with a smug, "to hell with you" air of abject certainty. That's the true mark of the demagogue. He is incapable of measured judgments, and he is unable - and unwilling - to admit to even the potential for being wrong, let alone admit when he is.

Gingrich can't simply something is "X' or "Y." He has to throw in some extreme adverbs to emphasize how right he thinks he is. Obama's national security policy isn't a mistake, or just risky, but "enormously dangerous and potentially the final nail in America's coffin." People who disagree with him aren't guilty of hypocrisy but of "utter total hypocrisy." Obama's refusal to rubber-stamp the approval of Republicans' Keystone XL pipeline bill isn't "unfortunate," but "an example of Obama's grotesque and pathological need to destroy America."

Gingrich laughed at Obama's 2008 campaign pledge to set the minimum wage to $9.50, and called Obama "some kind of Socialist Dudley Do-Right."

Well, keep laughing, Newt. Come November, you'll see what it's like to be "Snidely Backlash."

Posted by Gary St. Lawrence at January 22, 2012 12:25 PM
Comments
Comment #334928

Your probably right I don’t think he will get the Nomination. IMO Mitt will be the nominee.

Posted by: KAP at January 22, 2012 12:54 PM
Comment #334932

It’s hard to say any one candidate has it locked up after 2 primaries and one caucus. But I do find it interesting that the South Carolinians would support Newt to run against Obama. There can be no doubt, there is a great backlash against Obama. It is seen in the SC choice. Romney would be most closely indentified with Obama and Newt would be the exact opposite end of the spectrum, Yet Newt won the primary in a number of catagories of people.

SC also had a record turnout in the primary vote; indicating a real Republican interest in the 2012 election:

http://www.washingtontimes.com/blog/inside-politics/2012/jan/22/south-carolina-scores-record-primary-turnout/

Posted by: BobinDenver at January 22, 2012 2:02 PM
Comment #334943

I think the 5 million edge given Newt in SC played a role. He’ll likely be outspent in the future and Romney will improve his debate-game.

He’d need to get more dough and keep up the heat on Romney, who seriously needs a shot in the arm. Then, if a 3rd party candidate were to take votes from Obama more so than Newt, Newt could theoretically win…

dlw

Posted by: dlw at January 22, 2012 3:45 PM
Comment #334946


dlw, there aren’t many third party names being circulated other than the possibility of this finally being the year that Ron Paul tells the Republican adios or Donald Trump decides to jump in. They would more than likely, take votes from the Republican rather than Obama. Theoretically Newt can win, with or without a third party draw off. I think that is why we created odds makers.

Posted by: jlw at January 22, 2012 4:59 PM
Comment #334951

This article pretty much sums it up.
Gingrich might possibly win the GOP primary, but I seriously doubt he could win nationally.

Personally, I don’t think Willard Romney can win nationally either — because he’s an out-of-touch Wall Street 1%er who is trying to hide too much of his public record as a governor, and too much about his private business dealings and taxes — in a time when most people in the country are incredibly angry about what Wall Street did to our economy, and when too many are struggling in a way Romney simply can’t relate to.

I also don’t think Santorum can even hope to win the primary, not just because he’s way too extreme with his Social Conservatism, but because he has no charisma at all.

I sort of expect to hear that Ron Paul will continue to run as an independent, yet I’m not sure. It could also be that he’ll decide not to do this in order to protect his son Rand’s standing amongst the GOP.

Posted by: Adrienne at January 22, 2012 6:47 PM
Comment #334970

IMHO, I think the next election will define the direction our nation wants to take. Are we going to continue on the route of becoming just another European style country or are we going to try for the slow move back to the once great exceptionalism based on individual freedoms.

I think it is a given that The obama will be re-elected, doesn’t matter if Gingrich or Romney. So I am trying to pay close attention to how the House and Senate turn out.
Liberal President with a Republican House and Senate OR Liberal President with a Democratic and Liberal House and Senate.

The only thing interesting with the Presidential election will be to see the ridiculous ways leftists will use to try and associate House and Senate candidates with the “evil 1%er” or the “evil toad with no family values.”
Pretty laughable coming from the same group who gave us kerry and clinton.

Posted by: kctim at January 23, 2012 11:02 AM
Comment #334972

I think this will be one of the least important elections in our lifetime. Obama is likely to win, and if not, the only person likely to beat him is Romney, and the net result of Romney’s governing style will be the same. Regardless of what happens with the House, the requirement for 60 votes in the Senate virtually guarantees nothing significant will happen.

Sorry to disappoint. This election resembles the 1996 Clinton v Dole match, and the result will probably be similar. I know everyone likes more exciting, inciting, dire predictions about the outcome, but I just don’t see it.

Posted by: phx8 at January 23, 2012 11:09 AM
Comment #334975

The country is not going to go for Richie Rich. Gingrich will get the nomination. The one thing Newt is right about is he is the only one that can beat Obama in a debate. In fact, all his personality flaws listed in the article make him pretty much unbeatable in a debate. No way Romney can keep up with his button pushing skills and the best obama could hope for would be a tie.

Posted by: Schwamp at January 23, 2012 11:26 AM
Comment #334982

I think Newt will get the nomination because no matter what your opinion of him is he has done what needs to be done before and has the overall experience and background needed to do the job and do it well. As far as his prior relationships: 1)he’s admitted he was wrong and asked and received forgiveness from God and his family. 2) he was found guilty of “1” charge out of “300” and paid a fine. 3) he offered and got paid for his services/advice to Fanny. 4) he has the overall government & world knowledge needed for the job and is a conservative not a moderate like Romney. He’s not perfect but is hands down better than Obama and has definitely been “Vetted”! Obama can now be vetted on his record and past and without the prompters he’s in for a serious wake-up call when in a debate with Newt!

Posted by: stdhmr at January 23, 2012 1:14 PM
Comment #334985

By the way, Gary, I thought your article was very good and very thorough.

stdhmr,
“1)he’s admitted he was wrong and asked and received forgiveness from God and his family.”

Forgiveness from God? That remains to be seen. If I recall, God supposedly told five different candidates they should run for president. Also, does this mean the Catholic religion is the right one?

“2) he was found guilty of “1” charge out of “300” and paid a fine.”

So there is nothing to the other 299 charges? Really? If I recall, Gingrich paid a $300,000 fine and resigned his position as Majority Leader of the House under pressure from his fellow conservatives, because he was such a disgrace. Pleading to one charge does not mean he was exonorated from the rest. Good luck with this. Imagine Newt rapping: ‘I got 299 charges, but being lib ain’t one of ‘em.’

“3) he offered and got paid for his services/advice to Fanny.”

And how does Newt respond? He lies about it. His usual modus operandi is to blame the media.

As for the fourth point, he does have better knowledge of government than any of the other candidates. Unfortunately, the execution of his duties in the House ended very, very poorly, and his own party members rejected him en masse. And remember, the vetting on Newt hasn’t even begun. Watch the Romney campaign in FL. As I’ve observed many times before, Romney’s campaign manager is an opposition researcher. Romney will use enormous amounts of money made available through Citizens United to attack Newt like Newt’s never been attacked before.

Posted by: phx8 at January 23, 2012 2:18 PM
Comment #334988

By the way, Romney is demanding Newt release the details on those 300 ethics charges.

Posted by: phx8 at January 23, 2012 3:15 PM
Comment #334989

Phx8, isn’t that something that can be found with research? Or are they sealed or something?

Posted by: kctim at January 23, 2012 3:36 PM
Comment #334992

kctim,
Here is a link to a general article on the matter:

http://content.usatoday.com/communities/onpolitics/post/2011/12/newt-gingrich-nancy-pelosi-ethics-committee-/1

And I have to correct something I said earlier. Gingrich faced 84 charges of ethics violations.

Here is the public report on the charges:

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CRPT-105hrpt1/pdf/CRPT-105hrpt1.pdf

It’s a government report. It’s very long.

Thousands of pages of research went into compiling that report, and that research has never been released. I believe that’s what is at issue. When Pelosi mentioned it, Gingrich went ballistic. The information is supposed to be confidential, or under seal, or whatever; at any rate, it’s not supposed to see the light of day. Romney now wants to push Gingrich about that report. It’s revenge for the whole thing about demanding Romney release his tax returns. What’s good for the goose is good for the gander.

Posted by: phx8 at January 23, 2012 4:34 PM
Comment #334994

Thanks for the info Phx8. I’m sure this campaign is going to get even uglier.

Posted by: kctim at January 23, 2012 4:56 PM
Comment #334997

Romney has money and organization and the backing of ‘establishment’ corporate Republicans; however, he does not have the ability to tap into emotions. Newt knows how to stoke hatred, and he’s tapped into the Tea Party emotions.

It’s the faction that truly hates Obama for being a communist socialist Muslim follower of Reverend Wright, an Indonesian and Keynan anti-colonial pal of terrorists, who was not born in the USA, never released his grades, and not-so-secretly hates America. Through the Tea Party, Limbaugh, Beck, FOX, and others, conservatives have been pouring gasoline on the fire, even though fellow establishment Republicans warn them this will be a funeral pyre for them.

I wonder how long Santorum will stay in the race?

Posted by: phx8 at January 23, 2012 5:34 PM
Comment #334999

Schwamp-
Beat Obama in a Debate? Even if the man scores points, he’s got absolutely no impulse control when it comes to what he says. Obama’s talent is for both providing good answers, and remaining likeable.

As for Romney vs. Gingrich? The GOP’s problem is that it long ago fell under the spell of divisive figures like Gingrich, who built their congressional majorities on being divisive, even to the point of being feckless.

It’s not an accident, I think, that Gingrich is doing so well. Whether Tea Partiers want to admit it or not, their paradigm is basically a distillation and purification of Gingrich’s model of playing on economic, religious, and social resentments and hostilities, while giving a free pass to an atmosphere of corrupt special interest and elitist policy making.

I know some may recall that I keep on saying that I was once a Republican, and that I turned away from the party. I think Gingrich and his fellow travellers had a lot to do with it. I believed, before I became a Democrat, that the key wasn’t to roll back changes made by the liberals, or undo everything, but slow things and let changes occur when they were for the best. He lead a congress that instead undid a lot of the safeguards that I didn’t see any reason to trash, and pushed an agenda I knew flew in the face of good science. The Party’s only gotten worse since then.

Romney? Romney represents the party’s weakness, in more ways than one, a party so divided and out of touch, it cannot even field a candidate representative of its values without the chance being that they’ll lose the election.

Meanwhile, The House, under Republicans, is taking Gingrich’s own policies even further than they did before, with the consequence being that Congress is now more hated than ever. (not so much hyperbole, these days, if you look at the polls)

Long story short, the party either concedes or does not concede to the fact that it’s politics are corrosively unlikeable. Either way, they yield an advantage to the Democrats. Gingrich might have been a professor, but so was Barack Obama (little note to Romney, who alleges Obama never had a real job before he was president.)

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at January 23, 2012 5:55 PM
Comment #335013


Romney attacking Newt? Newt got a $5 million political donation from one supporter. Much of that money went into producing the anti Romney/Bain video. Since his win in S.C., the guy has ponied up another $5 million.

Romney is the Wall Street candidate and he probably has a dozen supporters than can fork out that kind of money.

Romney is in attack mode in Florida. Can he bring Newt down a notch or two and will this help him? I don’t know. The fact remains that a majority of Republican voters don’t want Romney as their nominee, they have elevated then rejected every one of their potential nominees to the point that Newt is probably the only hope they have left for denying Romney the nomination.

Is the right desperate enough or determined enough to stop Romney that they will ignore or dismiss the truth about Newt Gingrich?

Posted by: jlw at January 24, 2012 2:16 AM
Comment #335015

I can’t believe how much you all sound like each other!

It’s like both parties have morphed into a bickering, “Married With Children” persona.

Nothing I’ve read above represents anything of substance. The only comments I’ve taken notice to mimic the complaints of the other party! It really sounds like you guys are yelling at a mirror!

and just the right amount of sub-dermal racism that appeals to his party’s longing-for-the-days-of-Dixie, all-white-all-the-time, faux-evangelical base.
Posted by Gary St. Lawrence at January 22, 2012 12:25 PM

Yea, Gary St. Lawrence, except we used to call it the Democratic Party.

Forgiveness from God? That remains to be seen.
Posted by: phx8 at January 23, 2012 2:18 PM

Let me know when you see that, phx8. Personally, I don’t think you will have anything to do with it. So, why make a comment like that? Are you are grasping at straws? Your comment reflect the traits of a person in denial.

By the way, Romney is demanding Newt release the details on those 300 ethics charges.
Posted by: phx8 at January 23, 2012 3:15 PM

By the way, the IRS said they have already been released.

..or whatever; at any rate, it’s not supposed to see the light of day.
Posted by: phx8 at January 23, 2012 4:34 PM

How did you come across this “secret information”, phx8?

Why on earth would you try to ignore the past explanations? It was over and done with in the 90’s! Why would you want to open this issue again? It served it’s purpose then. Now, It will only expose the fabric the charges were made of. That fabric is woven with a very flimsy thread. I think they called it “news” back then.

It’s the faction that truly hates Obama for being a communist socialist Muslim follower of Reverend Wright, an Indonesian and Keynan anti-colonial pal of terrorists, who was not born in the USA, never released his grades, and not-so-secretly hates America. Posted by: phx8 at January 23, 2012 5:34 PM

I don’t know why you’re bringing this up either, phx8! Are you asking for President Obama to be vetted again?

Stephen Daugherty, your political party affiliation should be no bother to me at all. It is your beliefs that guide your political influence onto others. We’re about a 1500 miles apart, so I don’t think your political influence will bother me much. Not in this truly independent, truly united, state…

Indiana!


Posted by: Weary Willie at January 24, 2012 2:42 AM
Comment #335032

Weary Willie,
“Forgiveness from God? That remains to be seen.”
“Let me know when you see that, phx8. Personally, I don’t think you will have anything to do with it. So, why make a comment like that? Are you are grasping at straws? Your comment reflect the traits of a person in denial.”

How do you know, Willie? How do you know I don’t have anything to do with it? Why make such a comment? You’re in denial.

And the information about Newt isn’t secret. I posted links. When Pelosi brought it up, Newt strongly objected to the release of the material surrounding his ethics charges.

So, if you think no one should bring up Newt’s past, what do you think we should consider when looking at him for President of the United States?

“It’s the faction that truly hates Obama for being a communist socialist Muslim follower of Reverend Wright, an Indonesian and Keynan anti-colonial pal of terrorists, who was not born in the USA, never released his grades, and not-so-secretly hates America.”

Do I think Obama should be vetted again? Yes. Absolutely. Let’s do that. Please do. Because it brings such HUGE discredit on his opponents. Yesterday, a person in the crowd asked Santorum about Obama, the “avowed Muslim,” who had no legal right to be presidentl. Santorum said nothing. Nothing. Just shameful. Even McCain had the cajones to tell the crazies that Obama was an American. Vetting Obama and vetting Gringrich again reveals the right wing and the Newt followers for the fringe lunatics that they really are. Let’s do it.


Posted by: phx8 at January 24, 2012 12:12 PM
Comment #335035


That question put Santorum between a rock and a hard spot, he wants the vote of the lunatic fringe, but not as much as he wants the nomination.

Weary Willie, I agree, there is a considerable number of the lunatic fringe in Indiana. The Indiana Klan was well received in the state, nearly every town was controlled by the Klan, and it was renowned, in Klan communities around the country. Perhaps the EPA should do some investigating in Indiana, maybe their is something in the water.

Posted by: jlw at January 24, 2012 1:00 PM
Comment #335038

You do realize it is now 2012, don’t you JLW?

Posted by: kctim at January 24, 2012 1:51 PM
Comment #335041

kctim,

“You do realize it is now 2012, don’t you JLW?

Yeah, but it’s not the Middle Ages either.

From wikipedia

“In an interview with the Associated Press (AP) taped on April 7, 2003,[1] and published April 20, 2003, Santorum stated that he believed mutually consenting adults do not have a constitutional right to privacy with respect to sexual acts. Santorum described the ability to regulate consensual homosexual acts as comparable to the states’ ability to regulate other consensual and non-consensual sexual behavior, such as adultery, polygamy, child molestation, incest, sodomy, and bestiality, whose decriminalization he believed would threaten society and the family, as they are not monogamous and heterosexual.”

Sometimes the things we say have a way of comming back and biting us on the ass.

Rocky

Posted by: Rocky Marks at January 24, 2012 2:23 PM
Comment #335042

I was talking about the Klan controlling nearly every town in Indiana remark, Rocky.
If we are going to have the EPA test the water in Indiana because of Klan involvement decades ago, we might as well have them test the water in Chicago for the hate whitey BS.

Hell, if we are going to use decades old info to condemn people, the BS about The obama being a muslim must be true, right?

Posted by: kctim at January 24, 2012 2:47 PM
Comment #335044

kctim,

“Hell, if we are going to use decades old info to condemn people, the BS about The obama being a muslim must be true, right?”

Except for the fact that Obama has the right to be a Muslim if he wants to be, and ten years ago Santorum wanted to regulate “gay” acts you might have a point.

Rocky

Posted by: Rocky Marks at January 24, 2012 3:13 PM
Comment #335046

Rocky
The people on the right side of the aisle also have the right to be part of the Klan, but it doesn’t mean all or any of them are so why try and pretend it is fact?

The good people of Indiana don’t need their “water checked” any more than The obama needs his checked. Saying they do puts you right in the same boat as Orly Taitz.

Posted by: kctim at January 24, 2012 3:30 PM
Comment #335049

kctim,

I never mentioned the klan, but yes, it isn’t illegal to be a member.

In some parts of ths country homosexual acts are illegal, and Santorum is all for that according to his statement.

Rocky

Posted by: Rocky Marks at January 24, 2012 4:14 PM
Comment #335052

Rocky
That was the point of my post to JLW. We should not use what happened decades ago to label the people of Indiana as fringe members of the Klan today, anymore than we should say The obama is a muslim for where he was at decades ago.

The closest I got to Santorum was pretty much agreeing he should have ignored that dumb question that Phx8 mentioned he was asked.

Posted by: kctim at January 24, 2012 4:31 PM
Comment #335054


Kctim, your right and I offer an apology, my joking about the Indiana Klan of the 1920’s was inappropriate. It was not my intention to portray the right as all being a part of the KKK and in fact, a majority on the right are not associated with the Klan or any of the many other right wing hate groups.

I still think that much of the rhetoric, about Obama, coming from the right is reminiscent of the Klan.

Ray Larson, the International Imperial Wizard of the National Knights of the KKK, based in Indiana, in a 2008 Fox News interview, said that the Klan membership was on the rise thanks to Senor Bush opening the border to a Mexican invasion. Larson also unexpectedly said that if Obama were elected president, the Southern KKK, not the Indiana KKK, would assassinate him. Fox reported the comment to the Secret Service and the Bush White House.

Back to Gingrich, I was astounded with Newt’s revelation that if he is the nominee, he will not debate Obama. No audience participation, no standing ovations, no Newt.

Posted by: jlw at January 24, 2012 4:50 PM
Comment #335056

I’m on the fence about audience participation. On the one hand, what’s the point of an audience if they’re not supposed to participate? On the other hand, if audience demonstrations for their candidate are allowed, where will it end? Heckling, rushing the podium to high five the candidate, a pie in the face for another? In other words, where does appropriate participation begin, in keeping with the decorum of the occasion, and where does it cross the line? At what point does entertainment value- and let’s face it, who wants to watch a snooze fest?- overcome the whole point of the exercise in the first place, namely, informing the voters?

Posted by: phx8 at January 24, 2012 5:00 PM
Comment #335060
kctim wrote repeatedly … The obama … The obama … The obama …


You seem to like definite articles, kctim. Is there any particular reason why you go out of your way to call the president “The obama” and always capitalize the “T” in “the” but not the “O” in Obama?


Weary Willie wrote: Yea, Gary St. Lawrence, except we used to call it the Democratic Party.


Uh huh … because when one thinks of religious hypocritical faux-Christian zealots who don’t practice what they preach, one can’t think of a single Republican example …?

You know, Willie, when you let yourself spasm far enough to the right, you circle around and become Left.

Posted by: Gary St. Lawrence at January 24, 2012 5:30 PM
Comment #335062

JLW
Last I heard, there are less than five thousand Klan members in the US today, they hold no power or influence. I only rant about it because it seems that ANY question of disagreement of The obama is met with BS cries of racism.

Gary
It’s just a lasting habit from 07 when the left treated him as “The One.”

The small “o” started to come about after his ‘cling’ remark and became permanent when he forced government mandated health care/insurance.

Sorry, but I’m a pretty big fan of individual rights and freedoms and will not support those who take them away.
Us pro-choice people are kind of funny like that.

Posted by: kctim at January 24, 2012 5:58 PM
Comment #335071

It appears jlw is keeping racism alive and well. That’s being a good Democratic, jlw. It worked during the last election. Let’s see if people are still as gullable during this election.

Posted by: Weary Willie at January 25, 2012 12:55 AM
Comment #335115


Weary, Kctim is correct that there are only about 5,000 members of the KKK. It is also true that those 5,000 Klan members belong to many different Klan groups. There are 3 such groups in Indiana. It is also true that most of those clan members are congregated primarily in red and purple states.

Besides the Klan groups, there are many other Christian Identity hate groups in the country. None of these groups have significantly large memberships, most are quite small.

The thing about the Klan is that it waxes and wains in membership, with times when, like now, it is weak, and at other times it is strong.

When the country is weak, when hate rhetoric is tolerated, the hate groups gain members as well as people who are sympathetic to their messages.

When these groups are not tolerated, people are refrained from associating with them.

Just because these groups are small in numbers, there are many people in this country who are sympathetic to some of their ideas, like the inferior races can be tolerated if they are kept separate from the whites. The inferior races will do better if they are in their own place, separate but equal. No multiculturalism, for this multicultural country.

IMO, the best deterrent of the Klan, since the Civil Rights movement and the destruction of the Jim Crow segregated society is that the South, in particular, has flourished since it was dismantled. Economically, there is little to compare between the old South of the sixties and the South of today.

Although their numbers have fallen, there are still plenty of racists in this country and unlike the past when almost all of them identified with the Democratic Party, today there are more in the Republican Party than the Democratic Party.

Posted by: jlw at January 25, 2012 11:10 PM
Comment #335120

Kctim, when did you mention:

Kctim is correct that there are only about 5,000 members of the KKK.
Posted by: jlw at January 25, 2012 11:10 PM


I missed that one.

Posted by: Weary Willie at January 26, 2012 5:04 AM
Comment #362865

Nike Free 3.0 Shoes barefoot series of running shoes is one of the last couple of years, most the Nike fans favorite Nike Free 3.0 V4 running shoes.The series generally forefoot Waffle husband outside shading road design, has raised friction block has extremely suitable for running grip, and can be dispersed impact, make running more comfortable. The heel BRS1000 carbon fiber rubber, more wear-resistant, good grip, but the intense friction will leave a black mark on the ground.If Nike Free 3.0 Womens flexibility rating, 0.0 for barefoot running, 5.0 for ordinary running shoes. Nike Free Run Shoes running shoes introduced a FREE 3.0, Nike Free 3.0 V3 , FREE 7.0 FREE EVERYDAY FREE RUN + FREE style.nikefree30shoessale130315


Cheap Air Jordan Shoes series shoes are far ahead of other products in the sales and market demand, Air Jordan Retro 1 and set up one after another higher design, innovation and functionality benchmark year for the entire Air Jordan 4 industry. The core product is the perfect combination of athletes and technology - the most dazzling history of basketball star Michael Air Jordan 11, and accompanied by the the superstar experience the brilliant career of Cheap Jordan 4 Shoes, highlights his relentless pursuit of functionality, innovation and achievement.cheapairjordan4sale130315

Posted by: Nike Free 3.0 Womens at March 15, 2013 4:23 AM
Comment #363600

wengxy But Michael Jordans for sale was willing to pay his hefty fines that were levied on him “” in fact Nike paid up these fines. During every match in the series, a fine was levied and paid for Jordan shoes for sale. This was the best publicity that the shoes could hope for and Jordans for Cheap was immediately catapulted into the best known and most popular range of basket ball shoes. The fact that he was fined $5000 each time he wore the Air Jordan USA seemed to increase their popularity even more. Since then, Jordans sale seem to be the most highly sought-after sneakers on the shoe market.From there, Retro Jordans for sale has not looked back till today.Retro Jordans Air Flight89 launched the same year are inextricably linked, the same design of the outsole and midsole provides shock absorption function and good enough lateral support. There was a much needed impetus through the Cheap Jordan shoes line which was introduced by Nike with the rookie player Michael Jordan as its icon and ambassador.This is the second Louis Vuitton handbags Canada store in the destination.Louis Vuitton Handbags opened a second location following the huge success of the first one and an impressive demand for luxury products in the destination.

Posted by: Jordans for sale at April 1, 2013 5:07 AM
Comment #363631

linlin 402 Cheap JordansCheap Jordan shoes are available in many sneakers retail outlets and to make sure that you will end with the best choice.Past Air Jordan Air Jordan shoes salereleases have been equally chaotic, including a December shoe release at a Huntsville mall.In addition to, deciding on the more legitimate Cheap Oakley SunglassesOakley Sunglasses RADARLOCK Trail Sunglasses turns into a problematic job.The innovative series of jordan shoes out of basketball shoes cheap wholesale shoes cheap jordanscheap jordans vip.The Air JordanAir Jordans for Cheap Price Guide includes the current market value of the most popular Air JordanAir Jordans for sale models of all time,over 450 sneakers, original shoe box photos, original release date, the retail value of each shoe, and a history of each model.Cheap jordans jordans for saleshoes self apart from pretty much anything else that out there.The idea, though commonplace, called up that other always in waiting with cheap nike cheap nike shoesair max him.Bob for a mome nike air max sale nt had a strong impulse to retort cheap nike cheap jordansair max , but his anger died.

Posted by: Oakley Sunglasses at April 2, 2013 1:24 AM
Comment #363978

Nike Free Run series of running shoes is Nike Free Run 2 market in 2005 when, Nike Free Run 3 feet simulation barefoot feeling, Nike free run shoes can let your feet activities, bending and seize the ground, Nike free run womens like barefoot running. FREE soft running shoes suitable for any design of the Nike Free 3.0 from the Nike Free 3.0 V4 last. The last of the traditional Nike Free 4.0 V2 with pointed flat model. Nike Free Run 2 with shoe tree closer to barefoot morphology. Wrapped in the manner of the Nike Free Run 3 last and the materials used and makes the whole design barefoot feel closer. Nike Free 5.0 V4 Flexible soles and uppers of support to achieve harmony, Nike Free Haven 3.0 the degree of elasticity of the sole must be Nike Free 3.0 V3 consistent with the degree of support of the vamp. Nike Free Run 2 Womens Barefoot running simulation or http://www.nikefreerun3shoe.com will be greatly reduced.

Posted by: Nike Free 3.0 Womens at April 9, 2013 8:34 PM
Post a comment