Image 01 Image 03

Newt staying above the fray

Newt staying above the fray

Romney and Perry are doing each other and themselves damage by going at it in the way they have been, which at times seems childish, petty and insincere, which has even such mainstream commentators as John Podhoretz (A Pack of Nonsense) and Scott Johnson (Send in the Clowns) begging them to get serious.

I still think this all benefits Newt more than anyone, the experienced adult in the room who is staying above the fray, refusing to be drawn in, and focusing on Obama as a way of setting himself apart from the GOP crowd.

The “Lincoln-Douglass” style debate on November 5 should set Gingrich and Cain even further apart from the rest, but more important for Gingrich, it gives him the chance to eclipse Cain as the best not-Romney:

Herman Cain is a terrific guy. He is a great talent. He has a terrific career. He has a good story to tell. He has some ideas I don’t agree with, but they’re big ideas – ‘999’ is a big idea.

I’m in New Hampshire, where there is no sales tax. And I think the idea of a federal sales tax is not going to go over very well up here. But, nonetheless, it’s serious. I don’t have a goal of knocking anybody out. I have a goal of trying to attract people to look at big ideas and big solutions, look at a real track record, and over time, simply outgrow my friends, none of whom are my major opponent.

In my mind, my major opponent is Barack Obama. And all these guys are friends of mine. They’re are smart people. And there is something you can learn from every single one of them. And Herman and I are going to have a great time in Houston on November 5, where they’re having a dialogue about entitlement reform based on Paul Ryan’s work.

And I think people are going to find this surprisingly interesting and educational, but not necessarily hostile.


Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.


Sorry, but I cannot get in back of Newt.

I’ll admit that Newt’s one smart guy but that surely does not qualify him to the highest office in the land given the dire financial conditions that we face. Newt is a writer/politician/educator and are all negatives as to actually getting something done in today’s politically charged atmosphere.

I’m sticking with Cain who knows full well how finances work and who’s tough enough to institute fundamental change. His 9-9-9 proposal will never fly but it sure can be the basis for real reform in the tax code.

The best part… He’s a self made man who never received any favors from anyone. Just plain hard work.

As far as Perry is concerned, he’s imploded just as I stated on the day he announced. You just cannot carry that much excess baggage around without it dragging you down.

Romney… A RINO for sure but he does have business experience.

The rest are quickly becoming “also rans.”

    retire05 in reply to GrumpyOne. | October 26, 2011 at 6:19 pm

    GrumpyOne, I keep asking Cain supporter what it is, in his record, that makes you think he would govern the way you want him to. I have gotten answers like: he was the CEO of Godfathers, he’s a minister, he sings well, he has great personality, he says this or that, but none of those things make Cain more qualified than any of the other candidates.

    Cain has run for office before, and been a lobbyist in D.C. Admit it or not, that makes him just as much of a politican as the rest of the field.

    Cain cannot, repeat, cannot institute fundalmental change unless he is willing to abuse his office just as Obama is doing. Executive orders are not instituting change, it is mostly, an abuse of power.

    You also talk about Perry’s baggage. What baggage would that be? I don’t consider being the governor of the most successful state in the union baggage. Nor do I consider implementing tort reform laws or “loser pays” laws to be baggage. So I am curious what you consider to be Perry’s baggage. And please, don’t reference his verbal gaffes because you seem to be supporting someone who is a walking gaffe machine.

    I await your answers.

    Malonth in reply to GrumpyOne. | October 26, 2011 at 6:52 pm

    We all have to take a step back from this Herman Cain lunacy. Are we that self-destructive as conservatives to pick an Arnold Schwarzenegger to run against Obama? I remember Schwarzenegger’s rise and fall as California’s governor. As Bush beget Obama, Arnold beget Jerry Brown.

    Arnold too was a CEO and a business man. Arnold was going to bring his business expertise to Sacramento and “cut up California’s credit card.” Arnold sure talked a good game! As Cain does now, Arnold often shot from the hip. As we learned with Arnold, being great in the business world has little to do with competence as a politician.

    America is not hiring the President to be CEO. Note how Arnold fatigued California rejected Meg Whitman and Carly Fiorina (both bigger time CEOs than Arnold or Herman Cain). Unlike Reagan, Arnold never learned the how to fight and win in politics.

    In contrast to Cain, Newt has a record. When he was Speaker, conservative things got done as opposed to cry baby John Boehner. God knows what will happen to Cain if he were thrust into the crucible that is Washington D.C. as President. More importantly, I don’t think that will ever happen. So we better start looking for a conservative candidate who can win.

Serious question. If forced to choose between them, which combination would the RNC pick? Cain/Newt or Newt/Cain?

The answer tells me which to root for. Hint: I like underdogs.

I will watch a real debate as opposed to the press conference Q&A formats and look forward to watching this gathering in Houston. I know that my guy, Herman Cain, will do well in Houston. See you on the tele Herman.

It’s tough to ignore the fact that of the two current front runners, one has never won an election (Cain) and the other has only won one (Romney). Presidential elections definitely ain’t beanbag. Are these guys really ready?

I agree.

Instead of a circular firing squad, there should be a strict agreement among them that they all shoot at the same target (the Obama administration’s incompetence) and the best aim wins.

workingclass artist | October 26, 2011 at 5:23 pm

When was politics ever polite? This is the primary process.

I think it’s great for the two least serious candidates to have a Lincoln-Douglas style debate to entertain some tea party folks.

I was listening to the John Kasich Governor of Ohio on Hannity radio today discuss the reforms he is tying to push through in his state to promote business growth and jobs creation.

He said some very interesting things.

He asked Hannity “Why do you think businesses have been flocking to Texas…because of low taxes and predictable regulations”

He talked about the jobs starting to come back to his state because of the changes Ohio is making and warned of bankruptcy headed RI,IL,CA,NY. because these states couldn’t control pending and were driving business away.

He talked about how this is happening all over the country and that the focus should be on jobs,spending control and sane regulations.

He kept using Texas as the economic growth model and even mentioned NV competing for business attraction to their state (something Gov. Perry promoted heavily as leader of the RGA, a healthy competition between the states for job growth & consevative governance ideas) Ohio under Kasich is bringing back jobs to Ohio just as Florida under Scott and other states with conservative governors.

He also said in response to polls that most effective politicians don’t necessarily have high poling numbers citing Reagan and asked Hannity “What do you think Lincoln’s polling numbers were?”

Let Perry and Romney duke it out…It’s what primaries are about & the only polls that count are the ones at the voting booth.

This election will not be about pundits or polls or personalities and smooth debaters. It will be about records,jobs,policy proposals.

The rest is what it always is political theatre.

I’ll go out on a limb here and say that Romney and Perry are done. They’re off in their own little corner, sparring away. Cain and Newt are two to knock off now. Who knows? Maybe there’s still a dark horse about to break out and sprint to the front. (Can you still say “dark horse”?)

I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again. Newt is ridiculously brilliant, polished, and ready for the position of POTUS. Unfortunately, he’s too much of a politician and all we’ll get is status quo and more crony monkey business. I will support him if he’s the nominee, but with the same vigor as I did with McCain.

The only Republican for President I didn’t support was Dole in ’96. Clinton was clearly going to roll through, so I wrote in Howard Phillips from the US Constitution Party. Damn, I was a radical back in the day.

    retire05 in reply to windbag. | October 26, 2011 at 6:32 pm

    Who is doing most of the sparring? It certainly is not Perry since he is busy putting out his tax plan, on top of his energy plan (which only Newt has even touched on) and would leave Romney to stew in his own sauce if he could.

    It is Romney who has created a whole website devoted to nothing but attacking Perry. Perry does not have a similar website that attacks Romney. (although Romney purchased the website from GoDaddy via a proxy in 2008 to use against McCain but never did). But Romney is not satisfied just going after Perry, he is also going after the entire state of Texas. Ummm, ever wonder why it is called “Taxachussets?” Romney obviously feels he has to destroy the good done in Texas to defeat Perry. He’ll be on the losing end of that argument.

“…but more important for Gingrich, it gives him the chance to eclipse Cain as the best not-Romney.”

Premature and a little bias, no?

    …against Cain, I mean.

      William A. Jacobson in reply to Aucturian. | October 26, 2011 at 5:53 pm

      It gives Newt the “chance” to eclipse Cain. Whether Newt can do it, or whether Cain prevails, is a different question. There’s big upside potential for Newt in that debate since he is lagging, and if he damages the current frontrunning not-Romney candidate not with personal attacks but with the strength of his ideas, it will help move Newt into the position he should want.

workingclass artist | October 26, 2011 at 5:30 pm


If Perry has imploded why is the White House scared of him?
I mean he’s only polling at 10% so why even bother?

“BREAKING: Homeland Security Adviser Allegedly Leaked Intel to Attack Rick Perry
TX Dept. of Public Safety Director: “We know [Mohamed Elibiary] has accessed DPS documents and downloaded them.”

workingclass artist | October 26, 2011 at 5:36 pm


Newt was booted out by his own party as speaker of the house. (eyes rolling here)

Cain is flava of the month and gaffetastic!

Why do you suppose neither is being swung at by either Romney or Perry? Same reason neither is going after the others who won’t last.

This will be a knockdown dragged out delegate dogfight into the spring and maybe to the convention between Romney and Perry.
Just like 1980.

    You don’t think Perry’s embrace of a flat tax is a reaction to Cain’s popularity with the 9-9-9 thing?

      workingclass artist in reply to windbag. | October 26, 2011 at 6:13 pm

      no…The structure of Perry’s tax plan has Perry all over it as does the energy plan. I’m a native Texan and this is how Perry has approached most problems and communicated the proposal to voters. Lays out his case in terms easy to digest with data. The only time Perry really went against his usual approach was the gardisil mandate and voters raised hell.
      Perry builds smart teams. He got Forbes to advise him on his tax plan but it’s different then Forbes plans because it reflects the realities of governing/campaigning experience. Something Cain’s plan lacks.
      There is no way states will agree to an additional national sales tax on top of state taxes. Cain’s plan is the antithesis to smaller federal government and in fact because it is based on a failed european model is not the economic boost it’s advertized to be. Retail Industry in Florida is already balking.
      In Italy this led to the spread of a thriving underground economy & led to the EU VAT.

        You’re obviously much more familiar with Perry than the rest of the GOP. I was rooting for him when he entered the race. Now not so much. Perry hasn’t wowed the national GOP thus far. Regardless of achievements, communicating those and energizing the base is crucial. The One did that in ’08 with no experience. Whether Cain’s plan is worth pursuing, he has done the best job thus far in the GOP race to communicate his ideas to the base. That’ll get you elected.

I want to back Perry, I really do, but he keeps trying to talk me out of it.

Perry needs to do what Newt’s been doing: promote himself and his policies, and attack Obama. Perry isn’t going to regain the lead by attacking Romney. Won’t happen. If Cain implodes, which is entirely possible, Perry will likely be back on top – no one wants Romney.

Newt’s growing on me though. He’s far better on the issues than Romney and, unlike Cain and Perry, he’s been on the national stage long enough to know he has to be careful about what he says and how he says it (eg. Perry killing the news cycle about his tax plan by making a crack about how fun it is to ‘poke’ Obama about his birth certificate).

Newt would absolutely destroy Obama in a debate.

As for Newt’s baggage: the myths about it are far worse than the reality (eg. No he did NOT deliver divorce papers to his wife while she was in the hospital dying of cancer. Never happened.)

    workingclass artist in reply to Aarradin. | October 26, 2011 at 6:17 pm

    Focus on the record. Perry is in this for the long haul and he’s never lost a race.

    Perry is not afraid to fight in a campaign but he fights on his own terms…always has.

    retire05 in reply to Aarradin. | October 26, 2011 at 6:26 pm

    It’s not Newt’s personal foibles that will hurt him in the general election. It’s his resigning when he was hit with so many ethics charges by the Congress. Yeah, he was exonerated of all but two, but that is not how the Obama media will spin the headline.

    “…Newt would absolutely destroy Obama in a debate.

    People watch debates. They don’t listen to it. How would a book smart, gray-haired beltway republican contrast against a much younger, ethnic community organizer on stage?

    I’m aware of Newt’s many legislative accomplishments as House speaker; but that isn’t enough to counter B.O.’s media created persona.

    I can see why some feel Cain is a gamble but he’s my choice (presently) because I can market him better in a place like NYC than I could Newt.

    As to instituting the who-can-best-debate-Obama criteria; we are talking about a guy who can’t form a complete sentence without a teleprompter, misspeak ‘Corpsman’, thinks there are 57 states. And the only reason he won the debate against McCain is because had NO record for McCain to cross examine.

    Well it’s four years later and a veritable buffet of BO’s bad record for any candidate to pick and use on stage to their advantage.

      garfman in reply to Aucturian. | October 27, 2011 at 9:43 am

      You nailed it. It has always been a mystery to me about Obama’s so called great oration skills, especially when I hear conservatives concede to this illusion. The man is simply boring to listen to or look at, the epitome of aloofness and insincerity and doesn’t even strike me as having great intellectual prowess. He is as “gaffetastic” as Cain could ever be and the crucial difference is Obama’s gaffes comes from concealing truthfulness whereas cain’s are from shrugging off political correctness.

workingclass artist | October 26, 2011 at 6:27 pm

Here’s what was interesting about the last debate.

Perry attacked Romney and Redfaced Romney lost it.
Romney went after Newt and Newt sputtered & wilted.
Everybody went after Cain and Cain sputtered and said 999

Nobody went after Bachmann because she no longer counts.
Nobody went after Santorum because he doesn’t count either.

It was the first debate since Perry entered the race that wasn’t a pileon Perry debate where candidates actually went after Romney and Romney bled.

If Romney gets redfaced and loses it with Perry very hiring illegals how well will he do with Obama?

How well will Cain do after folks get tied of just hearing their analysis is wrong and apples and oranges BS.

How well will Newt do when his own record is thrown in his face?

workingclass artist | October 26, 2011 at 6:33 pm


Especially since the current speaker of the house was leading the charge to boot Gingrich out.

The problem with Newt is nobody can stand working with him.He might be a smart guy but he also never let’s you forget it, he has a glass jaw & he can get as down and dirty backstabbing political with the rest of em’…not a bad skill to have but when you exhibit politically bi-polar foot in mouth disease it becomes a problem with a pattern.

Example: Trying to score cheap points by labeling Ryan’s plan rightwing social engineering..or is that all forgotten now?

Cowboy Curtis | October 26, 2011 at 7:10 pm

I can’t imagine why Cain would agree to this. I’d sooner wrestle a rabid beaver than publicly debate Newt Gingrich on policy–as should anyone else.

BannedbytheGuardian | October 26, 2011 at 7:17 pm

Europe is teetering on financial calamity.

ME is near Islamic takeover .

The US left is imploding or exploding?

The US govt s stalemated & not able to move forward.

IMo this time it is not about personalities or gaffes or imperfections but the best person to handle a perfect storm both at home & abroad.

Gingrich undeniably has the best brain.

I think I might go find some wisdom in Pinky & The Brain .

I’ll draw fire, but that’s O.K. I’d love to see Sarah jump in or be recruited and together with Gingrich wipe the proverbial election floor with “the won” …. Hey, stranger things have happened.

I have but two wishes of the upcoming election season.

1) I want to see Newt debate Obama in a nonstop 3 hour rumble.
2) If I can’t have my first, I want to watch Newt debate Biden. Same rules as wish 1.

If you’ve ever watched a Chow Chow tear the living hell out of a mole it’s just caught in the back yard, you know the morbid fascination I’d have watching those debates.

In fact it would give me enough pleasure to watch that, that I could stomach Newt claiming 1600 Penn as his mailing address.

Though some claim its no fun to watch a grown man pummel a small child like a rag doll for 3 hours. They would have to revisit that thought after watching Newt light either of those ass clowns up like a burn barrel filled with napalm.

The coast gaurd would radio in to HQ in panic “This was no boating accident!!!”

Romney? Please. He’s a politician who tells everyone what they want to hear. He has flip flopped on just about every subject. He carries too much baggage. He is not conservative. Nothing would change in DC under his leadership. Romneycare and global warming, anyone? The two bugaboos conservatives hate most. The majority would not trust him about these two subjects or anything that springs from them.i.e. Anwar and oil drilling off the coasts. The media is soft pedaling re him now but wait and see what they would do if he won the nomination. McCain all over again.

Cain? He has no experience. He talks a good talk most of the time but has committed many gaffes that could have been avoided by a more experienced guy. He has no record we can judge his future actions by. We already have a guy with no record in the WH and look how well that turned out. Sometimes I get the idea some people support him because he is black and a would be foil against obama. It would not work. The media would make mincemenat out of him and he would be a sacrificial lamb among the wolves of DC. I don’t think he has the cojones to buck the media. He would probably fold like a house of cards. Politics is a blood sport and Cain doesn’t have enough experience of fighting in the mud to succeed.

Gingrich? Establishment republican. He pretends to be the voice of reason now but it’s just an act. He too has too much baggage and the media would never let up on him. Mind you, they will never let up on any republican candidate but Gingrich has given them too much ammunition. Sitting on the couch with the hag of the house and supporting global warming until he saw the folly of that and flip flopped on it. If he won the nomination I wold vote for him but it would be the hardest. Actually I will vote for any republican nominee but hope it will not be Gingrich.

Bachmann? I don’t know how she thought she had the experience to hold the highest of in the land. Of course, she wold be tons better than obama but that wold be starting at rock bottom.

Santorum? A good guy but a bit too religious for some people. He would be a great president but he doesn’t have the support he would need to win.

Huntsman? Please. Why this guy is still in is a mystery. Why he got in in the first place is a mystery.

Perry? Our best bet. The media is already going after him. They do not want him to win. They want Romney because they know many conservatives will not vote if Romney is the nominee. And if they stay at home, the dims could possibly keep the senate and take back the house. Perry’s record speaks for itself. His jobs creation is par excelence and that is what we need. The media is touting the silly things like the rock, Guardisil and immigration. If that’s al they have, they lose.

All the above candidates above have many fauz paux which is something I have never understood. These peole are supposed to be smart not to fall into that trap. I think it is because it is a case of in their heads, out their mouths. They don’t weigh their words sometimes and the media pounces on it. Just republicans, you undertand, not dims.


I agree.

Newt may debate well but he doesn’t actually believe a word of what he says.

Remember NY-23? The 2010 Delaware Senate race? Sofas with San Fran Nan? Piles of ethics charges? Multiple divorces? Multiple affairs? Attacks on Paul Ryan and his budget?

And Newt has ENORMOUS BAGGAGE that will present Obama a nearly endless array of attack vectors.

If Newt is the nominee I will be voting 3rd party again in 2012. I am simply done voting for LoTE candidates…

    Cowboy Curtis in reply to WarEagle82. | October 26, 2011 at 8:35 pm

    Thanks for doing so last time around. Boy, it sure taught us all a lesson.

      WarEagle82 in reply to Cowboy Curtis. | October 26, 2011 at 9:08 pm

      My conscience is clear. I exercised my freedom.

      If you don’t like the way I exercise my freedom then you may have more in common with Obama than you care to admit.

      And your voting for McCain got us where?

        Cowboy Curtis in reply to WarEagle82. | October 26, 2011 at 9:25 pm

        I don’t object to your voting however you wish. I support you exercising your freedom as you see fit, as I hope you’ll support my exercise of mine in pointing out what a ridiculous pretense to virtue it is to vote for a non-entity that cannot and will not win. One of two people were, and ever could, win the last presidential election. Neither was ideal by any stretch, but one was certainly better than they other. Voting third party doesn’t wash your hands of anything other than the adult responsibility to make a distasteful choice for the good of your country. And lets be clear about something, these little Ron Paul cliques that vote third party and think they are sending a message to the republican establishment most certainly are, but not the one they intend. All they do is show that when the chips are down, these people are far to flighty and fringe to be relied upon, and that its better to court the middle. That faced with the prospect of the first truly socialist president of this nation, they chose to throw a temper tantrum rather than vote for the lesser of two evils. It accomplished nothing but self-marginalization.

        What did my vote for McCain get us? A legitimate chance, if unlikely, to head off the unmitigated disaster that an Obama administration would so clearly be. Did I like it? No. But I grit my teeth and pulled the lever, because some things are more important than my ego, anger, and desire to feel above it all just so I can cast blame on everyone else.

          WarEagle82 in reply to Cowboy Curtis. | October 26, 2011 at 9:41 pm

          You are entitled to your opinion but McCain was never going to win. Just like Dole, McCain was the designated loser.

          Any distasteful choice you made did not going to benefit the country. McCain demonstrated time and time again he has no understanding of, or respect for, the US Constitution.

          I voted for an actual conservative and I will do so again when my other choices are “The Socialist” and “The Other Socialist.”

          I’ll vote for the Constitution Party again if I don’t like the GOP candidate. If we all stopped settling for “The Other Socialist” candidate we just might get something other than a socialist in the White House…

          @WarEagle82: I think you are misrepresenting history.

          McCain was very close to or ahead of Obama well into August 2008. When the first news of the impending collapse came out in mid-August, his numbers began to slip within a week. The media and members of congress hyped the news, believing it would help Obama — it did.

          When the bottom fell out in mid-Sept, McCain’s numbers went further down and he lost.

          McCain was not a “designated loser” who never had a chance. He had a decent chance until the economic news went against him. There has been a great deal of ignorant revisionist mythmaking about McCain to justify people’s emotional trauma over the loss.

          I understand why people want to do that, but it is unproductive and leads them to make stupid decisions in the future.

          If you want to help, learn from history — don’t rewrite it to make yourself feel better. In the end, you won’t.

        garfman in reply to WarEagle82. | October 27, 2011 at 10:22 am

        You really have some facts wrong and your comments show you allow the liberal media to influence your voting. You mentioned Dole as the “designated loser”. With rounding to the nearest half million votes, consider the following: in 1996 Clinton 47 million, Dole 39 million and Perot 8 million. I want insult you by doing the math. In 1992 Perot got 18 million votes and insured a Clinton first term and arguably a subsequent second.

        You appealed to “a clear conscience” in most of your comments. Your implication is that someone who chooses to vote for the so-called L.O.T.E. can not have a clear conscious. That’s a patently absurd false premise. Anyone who votes is entitled to a clear conscience just by virtue of participating. Therefore, I would argue that the “wisdom” of a vote should be a higher ideal to strive for rather than a clear conscience.

        In the mean time we get stuck with liberal presidents who have a plurality verses majority win. I’m big on freedom but I would like to see some good ideas on restructuring party politics. Your “throw-away” or “send a message” votes don’t translate into policy changes that benefit you–we don’t have a parliamentary system. The Clinton years were excruciating for me and I blame Ross Perot and those who voted for him.

        Having said that I respect your right to vote for any legal candidate and would die for it.

          WarEagle82 in reply to garfman. | October 27, 2011 at 8:21 pm

          Of course, I never said any such thing. Try responding to what I said instead of making something and responding to that…

          You appealed to “a clear conscience” in most of your comments. Your implication is that someone who chooses to vote for the so-called L.O.T.E. can not have a clear conscious.

And voting third party will accomplish what exactly? Another term of The Won because you couldn’t find a reason to vote against him or for whoever the candidate is. Way to go!!

    WarEagle82 in reply to MAB. | October 26, 2011 at 9:10 pm

    Voting my conscience gave me a clear conscience. That is what it accomplished.

    As I said, I exercised my freedom. If you don’t like the way I exercise my freedom then you may have more in common with Obama than you care to admit.

Voting 3rd party is great if you hold gold and short the entire stock market. Obama has been great for my portfolio. Not so much for the rest of America.

If the GOP doesn’t learn its lesson, I can keep shorting the market for another 4 years. The establishment might be slow learners, but I’m not.

*note I didn’t vote 3rd party in 2008, but I sure as shit got out of the market the week of labor day 2008— you know around the time McCain demonstrated his wizardry at economic leadership.

When your choices are dumb and dumber, better hide your gold and guns and run for cover.

Yes, you exercised your freedom, you and how many others who might have meant the difference between what we have and perhaps something less destructive? Note, I had no illusions when it came to McCain. He was simply the lesser of two evils.

As for your second statement about having more in common with Obama than I think — there is a world of difference, as there is no imposition of wills — no one forced you to vote third party.

    WarEagle82 in reply to MAB. | October 26, 2011 at 9:29 pm

    I never said anyone forced me to vote 3rd party. Not sure where you got that. But I am done with the LoTE argument. The “lesser of two evils” still left you voting for evil. I voted for an actual conservative. As I said, my conscience is clear…

workingclass artist | October 26, 2011 at 9:47 pm


good summary.

So how does Perry beat Obama in a debate…the same way he did Romney in the last debate. (And Perry did win that one because he knocked Mitt off his carefully constructed electability perch)

Get under his skin,Rattle him and show him up for who he is.

All Perry has to do is keep things focused on the economy, budgets and border security.

Throw the damn rules out the window.

The simple truth is this…These debates aren’t fair or worth anything beyond clips the media plays ad nauseum while they quibble & tsk tsk…just like the skewed media and voters know it…and so does Perry.

Perry goes for the local media because that’s what most voters read,hear and watch.

WarEagle82 | October 26, 2011 at 9:29 pm
You should be more careful when it comes to reading.

You obviously have never been in a situation where the lesser of two evils is the only thing between something even marginally good and complete chaos. I hope you never come up against that and that you continue to have a clear conscience… particularly when compromising can prevent a greater evil. There are times when absolute “anything” is the wrong path to take.

Never said you were forced. Read what I wrote carefully and you’ll understand.

    WarEagle82 in reply to MAB. | October 27, 2011 at 8:28 pm

    Frankly, you have no idea what I have come up against. I have lived all over the world. I have had school mates injured by RAF bombs. I have had a dozen friends and acquaintances murdered by Muslim and narco-terrorists. I have had to worry about whether the things I did or did not do would result in the deaths of close friends. I have held my own child in my arms thinking she was dead. Don’t assume to know what I have experienced and then talk to me about LoTE…

TeaPartyPatriot4ever | October 27, 2011 at 1:46 am

Herman Cain is not a Washington DC insider politician, which makes him attractive, in face of, and in the comparison of these liberal crony capitalist Republican Party RINO ‘s, in the “who’s on 1st”- Mitt and Rick show.. which has completely exposed themselves to the Nation, for what really are, live on national TV debate time.. as well as the other way out there candidates, like Ron Paul, and Jon Huntsman.. although Michele Bachmann is attractive in many ways, she does not have the experience level yet, that she needs.. 
As for Newt Gingrich, 2 reasons for Newt’s rise.. 
1 – the others are so bad,  the dog catcher looks better than these Crony Capitalist Republican Party RINIO elitists, ie; Gov’s  Perry and Romney..  and the rest, fare even worse..  and 2 – Newt Gingrich, who is the only one with the experience, the knowledge, the intelligence,  the skill,  the wherewithal, and the guts, to know, see, and actually do something about the problems we are now facing, and the people causing the problems.. 
So with this current situation in the prospective field of Presidential candidates, Newt is the only one, who stands out as a real serious candidate, who is not a gimmick, that lasts longer than the flavor of the week, for the media to play games with..  
After Gov. Palin quit and abandoned America, and her supporters.. again,  Newt became the only one left, who could be the President, with real true grit, with the US Constitution as the official and final law of the land as his basis of Policy and conduct., and the only one who can not be turned into an ignorant spineless puppet..

    BannedbytheGuardian in reply to TeaPartyPatriot4ever. | October 27, 2011 at 3:02 am

    I thought that Palin & family having all personally experienced massive levels of hate across the land might have thought the level of hate would rise to toxicity if she were to run. After all not every baby has had his very own hate campaign against him & he cannot even speak!

    As it is – the hate is up all over & we now know it has nothing to do with Sarah.

    It was always weird how much sheer abhorrence was directed at Palin & so many things made up to justify the attacks. Now she has stepped aside it is all too clear.

    If rwanda was a 10 America is at 3 in 2011,

    “After Gov. Palin quit and abandoned America, and her supporters.. again”

    By which we learned PDS does not affect just leftists. Assuming this is not actually a liberal, of course; merely someone who acts like a Leftist.

    workingclass artist in reply to TeaPartyPatriot4ever. | October 27, 2011 at 9:42 am

    Herman Cain was a DC lobbyist…but keep the myth goin’

    There is a 3rd reason for Newt’s bump in the polls. Many people have very short memories.

    Remember NY-23 and the dollars Newt poured into Scozafava’s campaign up to the day she withdrew from the race – AND ENDORSED THE DEMOCRAT. How about his failure to support the GOP candidate in Delaware? How about his attacks on Paul Ryan and his budget? How about that famous couch episode with San Fran Nan? I could go on…

    Eventually, Newt will catch up with Newt, just like Romney reminds us he is still Romney. Newt can run as fast as he wants but he can’t beat himself. Newt will eventually self-destruct if he doesn’t run out of money first…

If only he had kept his pecker in his pants and divorced number 2 first, then chased number 3. But he is a politician, a very bright one, but a politician nonetheless. Clinton had the same problem. In his defense, he is married to Hillary. That might cause a weaker man to jump off of a bridge, rather than “dally” with a chubby intern. Hmmm, “chubby” was part of the problem.

Newt would probably make a very good president…but he simply has far too much bagage to get elected. He might make it on a ticket as VP but not as the head liner.

That being said, he is so far, the only one to remember the Reagan dicta “thou shalt not bash another republican.” And it’s giving him a hell of a log of traction because of it. If Mr. Cain is smart, he’ll follow Newt’s lead on this.

[…] on the line.This is an interesting twist, mostly because it’s just Cain and Newt.  As I mentioned before, I view this as a chance for Newt to replace Cain as the leading not-Romney; or alternatively, for […]