Republican Establishment Goes Mad
By Larry Johnson on June 9, 2009 at 4:48 PM in Current Affairs
While channel surfing last night I happened across the fund raising dinner held by the Republican Congressional campaign committees (i.e., House and Senate) and saw a clip of the propaganda film extolling the virtues of Newt Gingrich. Are you kidding me?
I agree that Newt is a smart fellow and a clever pundit. He certainly deserved credit for the Republican congressional win in 1994. But as a leader he demonstrated he was a complete, utter lightweight.
Gingrich had the chance to lead by example. So while he helped lead the charge criticizing Bill Clinton’s adulterous behavior sanctimonious Newt was busy fucking women other than his wife. This goes beyond hypocrisy. This reflects arrogance, hubris and recklessness wrapped up in intolerable smugness.
I do not forget or forgive that kind of conduct. Newt had an historical opportunity to transform the Congress and instead chose his own penis politics over his so-called vision for America.
And what do establishment Republicans in Washington want? More Newt. Check this out at CQ:
Sarah Palin could have stolen the show without uttering a word at Monday night’s $14.45 million Republican congressional dinner. But she didn’t.
It was the keynote speaker, former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, who ultimately dominated the end of a day on which the Alaska governor’s whereabouts — her attendance at or absence from the Washington Convention Center — had seemed to captivate the nation’s capital.
Gingrich held forth for nearly an hour, delivering a policy-heavy address that few Republicans, and surely fewer Democrats, think Palin could match.
Deemed both “too long” and “cogent and well thought-out,” by Utah Sen. Bob Bennett, Gingrich’s speech sounded a bit like the rough draft of a State of the Union address.
He articulated policy visions both broad and specific on such a wide array of topics that it was hard to keep count: taxes, education, energy, regulation, affirmative action and the role of religion in American life, to name a few.It was a bad scene for Palin, according to GOP strategist Matt Mackowiak.
The Republican spin is that Newt was “da man!” While I’m still a registered Republican there is no way I would give a dime to support another fat, old white man who demonstrated who could not handle leadership when he had the chance. By contrast the Republican establishment is busy blasting Sarah Palin who, as a successful governor with a track record of fiscal responsibility and challenging entrenched, corrupt Republican interests, is deemed “unacceptable.”
As bad as I think Obama is he can probably rest easy. The Republicans seem to have a death wish and refuse to embrace the future. They are locked in the past and too eager to sniff Newt’s underwear to even entertain a new thought.
on sale for only $16.95.
also comes with a special spatula.)
(List Price: $27.95 - Your Price: $15.47)
“The story of poker is that of risk-loving America ... a crazy ride in unparalleled detail, driven by wit, wisdom, true love, and sizzling style. As analyst, historian, devotee, and no mean player, James McManus is poker’s most eloquent advocate.”
By Sarah Palin (Release date: November 17. 2009)
there is a huge difference…newt wasnt under oath in a court of law before a federal judge….clinton was…..I dont excuse newt….but the comparison is laughable
mark: just keep telling yourself that: Newt’s adultery was waaay better than Bill’s. After all, Bill’s wife wasn’t lying a hospital bed dying from cancer. Oh, that Newt, what a guy!
Amusing to me that Republicans can always justify ANYTHING Republican politicians do and demean some Democrat while they’re doing it.
What a great country we live in, no?
tek….how nice of you to ignore the honest facts of the situation…did you at least take a critical look at the issues of being under oath in front of a federal judge?…something tells me, you averted the topic of what I said because it really cant be argued….but thank you for playing…I will be happy to cross post you if you can take a critical look at both sides of an argument…if you cant….please dont bother
Another “honest fact”: The lawsuit Clinton was under oath for was later thrown out by that federal judge you refer to. He had no business being deposed for it in the first place.
Mark
Lets see going to see your wife in the hospital with cancer and telling her
“see you wouldn’t want to be you got a new babe”
Thats ok now.
but but but Hillary was such a bitch because she stayed and made her marriage work and forgave the cheating husband. Gee I was under the mistaken impression that marriage vows meant something.
silly me.
If that is the republican idea of moral authority and backtrack lying on ever issue is the democratic idea of moral authority this country is totally screwed.
WOMEN WITH INTELLIGENCE AND EXPERIENCE,MEN WHO SUPPORT THEM AND COUNTRY BEFORE PARTY ALWAYS
PUMAS,BUBBAS,EQUALISTS AND THOSE PEOPLE RULE
I didnt even mention hillarys name…..amazing
Bill’s wife wasn’t his high school math teacher either. Newt’s was. He married her right after graduation. If I recall correctly, she worked and paid his way through the rest of his education. Nice of him to discard her at the most critical time of her life, when she was fighting for it.
LOL!! Larry, you sure have a way with words! Boy, ain’t it the truth though. Newt is the biggest hipocrite ever!
i.e.
hipocritehypocriteFighting about which guy shouldnt have been screwing aroung is so stupid.
None of them should have been, but they did.
As long as they are not supporting their habit with non-salaried tax money then this is so stupid.
To me its what they did for our country or what they didnt do for our country. Yea many of these men arent sleeping arount but they are robbing us blind, which is worse.
Right now we have men in our government siphoning off our money to who and what knows what.
Right now Obama and his croonies are taking over many private businesses and states with the stimulus money.
So who really gives a Rats A$$ who slept with whom.
mark: and, oh yah, Clinton was only under oath because the dimwit Republicans decided to impeach a sitting president over a purely personal issue. No misdemeanor or crime of any kind occurred until the Republicans got Ken Starr ramped up to the tune of 40 million taxpayer dollars so they could do their worst to the most popular Democratic President in history.
Ya gotta love those Gingrich Republicans! They brought us Dubya and Cheney, Iraq and Afghanistan ( a country that destroyed Britain, France, and Russia, and now U. S.), brought us bankruptcy and the Second Great Depression. I know you guys think Bill Clinton brought on this Depression even though he left office 8 years ago, but if you could ever look at some facts, you’d see it was Bush and Cheney.
Thank you, tek. I love Republicans who want to pound Clinton [and did so with gusto] for his sexual indiscretions, but suffer amnesia when it comes to similiar [and as you pointed, even more hurtful infidelities] of their own leadership members.
Newt gets the hypocrisy award of the last decade.
Btw, Larry. I agree that the Republicans have a whole lot of soul searching if they stand a prayer in 2010 & 2012. If they expect to hand out lukewarm leftovers from the last 8 years, they’ll have their asses handed to them.
Of course, that leaves a voter like myself and millions of others without a decent choice. I cannot vote for Obama and the “New” Democratic Party. But I won’t vote for the “Old” Repubs, who obviously have a problem even with their own, ie. Sarah Palin. I may not agree with her on all things. But damn! At least she has guts.
I would vote for Palin over most Democrats. And if she were in the primary mix with Newt, I’d volunteer on her campaign, just to give her a shot at the general.
But I will never vote for B0, no matter who the repub candidate is. Just can’t vote for him, knowing his character and inexperience, and his willingness to sell out our nation.
At that dinner, she also had their attention. After the speech, the table that had the crowd around it was Palin’s, not Newt’s. Newt is as slimy as his namesake. He may have given the speech, but she is the one that they were talking to afterwards. And the funny thing about the Clinton impeachment is that when the Republicans decided to be the morality police, and announced that they were going to investigate the members of Congress for the same sort of “moral turpitude” they accused Bill Clinton of, 15 members of Congress resigned rather than face the investigation. As I recall, 4 of them were Dems, the rest were GOP. I got a good laugh over that one. It was the perfect example of why those who live in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones.
-and, oh yah, Clinton was only under oath because the dimwit Republicans decided to impeach a sitting president over a purely personal issue.-
dimwit? those vile prurient Rep. perverts knew exactly what they were doing to a sitting president.
The difference is that Newt is the kind of person who will manuever a political opponent into a position where he’ll be asked questions about the most intimate details of a sexual liason under oath, when it’s no damn business of anyone but the parties involved in the first place. He deliberately turned another human being’s private sexual indescretion into a public three-ring circus, and he didn’t give a damn that he was seriously damaging the focus and effectiveness of the President while doing so. That, in fact was his objective.
My contempt for what Newt did greatly exceeds my disapproval of Clinton’s sexual behavior. I don’t even care about a president’s private sexual behavior, and resent having it pushed into my face and into the headlines.
Add Newt’s joy at hanging other peoples’ dirty laundry out in public to the hypocrisy of doing it while he’s got dirty laundry of his own, and you’ve got a sorry excuse for a political figure, and a sorry excuse for a man.
People make much of the lie under oath. I think in some cases the seriousness of that depends upon the topic and the propriety of the question. It was a foolish lie about a foolish bit of behavior, given as the culmunation to a line of questioning that demeaned both the people asking and the man answering, all before an audience of self-righteous hipocrites.
it certainly was not a “private personal matter”…clinton told a lie to a federal judge in the matter of jones v clinton…the lie served to deny paula jones constitutional rights for a fair trial…these facts cant be debated…..you can spin it….but the legal facts are the same….it isnt partisan….its the law
It would have been as far as I am concerned had it not been with an office worker. I am still amazed that people have let the sexual harassment part of this slide. The guy was the most powerful man in the world, and the female was a staff member who answered to him. To me none of the other stuff was near as relevant as far as the morality of it goes, whether he lied and define “sex” and define “is” etc. If he had been the President of GM and that was his secretary, the guy would have become a letch of historical proportion.
I’m not making assumptions about who took advantage. Bill Clinton–and I have a generally favorable opinion of him, apart from this behavior–clearly has some issues. That doesn’t necessarily imply coersion. Maybe others could be faulted for taking advantage of his weakness? Paul Jones settled out of court for $850,000–after the court had dismissed her suit on the grounds that she had failed to demonstrate any damages. That was the price Clinton paid for having propositioned her. I’m of two minds concerning who actually f—ed over whom, and which the predator really was in this he says she says situation.
Docelder: I don’t know how closely you followed the story at the time, but the “office worker” stalked Bill Clinton until she finally got him in a relationship. She had been involved with Vernon what’s-his-name (black Cabinet member) before that, so, no innocent young girl preyed upon by her powerful boss. Why is Clinton blamed for the liason when Monica had such lax morals that she went after her boss and got involved with him knowing he was married to the First Lady of the United States?
Monica Lewinsky cared nothing about destroying the country so she could have a a fling with a powerful man old enough to be her father–a real s**t if you ask me and I don’t mean a synonym for crap.
What is the difference between Bill Clinton and the the local park flasher? What normal man pulls out his penis and exposes himself to multiple women in the workplace? What would you think of a person that did that to you at work? Why is he any different?
Did Paula Jones and the others also “stalk” him and beg him to pull out his penis? There is a pattern here…women destroyed in public…Bill goes on as usual.
I would say that both Monica and Bill were responsible for that particular inappropriate relationship. However, Bill, being president of the free world, really should be held to a ’slightly’ higher standard than an intern, don’t you think? He should have virtually the best judgment in the world. Especially given his well documented intellect.
Yeah, Paula was the model of modest female innocence and propriety, unfairly victimized by a powerful male, for sure. Her allegations of what happened behind closed doors were just that: allegations. She came away with an $850,000 settlement. Subsequently she capitalized on her notoriety by posing for nude photographs. This fall, she plays herself for pay in “The Blue Dress”, a movie dramatization of Bill Clinton’s sexcapades.
What price honor? A couple of million? She’s made a bundle out of telling a lurid tale that couldn’t even make it to court, and stands to make even more. Any damage to her reputation results from her own actions–initiated at a politically opportune moment just shy of the statute of limitation. Bill may have been a compulsive womanizer, but who’s really the victim here?
As much as I’m a big fan of Bill
WE are all victims of his womanizing..
If it were not for the womanizing and the sting operation the Republicans pulled, Al Gore would have been president and Hillary would have been next.
Instead it’s always about the Blue dress.
Um, SHE IS THE VICTIM. I happened to see Paula Jones take a lie detector test on national TV and she PASSED. Guess you missed it. You can find it documented on Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paula_Jones
He ruined her life and destroyed her reputation. She deserves whatever money she gets. What else was she going to do for money to live on? Do you think the job offers were pouring in for office jobs after she was smeared and ruined by Clinton. Right. It’s ALWAYS the woman’s fault now isn’t it.
In case you’re too lazy, here is the quote from Wikipedia:
“In March 2005, Paula Jones appeared on the debut show of Lie Detector on Pax TV, produced by Mark Phillips Philms & Telephision, and was given a polygraph exam. She was asked if then Governor Bill Clinton had—in a hotel room in 1991—dropped his pants, exposed himself, and asked for sexual favors from her. Jones said yes and the polygraph operator determined she was telling the truth. Lie Detector offered to test Clinton, but he did not respond to the request. No American mainstream news sources commented on the polygraph test results, with the exception of Hannity and Colmes, who dedicated a couple of segments to it, and Sean Hannity’s radio show”
Worst case scenario? Bill propositioned her like some drunken frat boy, got rebuffed, and she walked out of the room leaving him in his underwear, feeling like an idiot, with only the two of them knowing about what had transpired. Until she decided to take the matter to court years later and hang it all out in public. She ruined her own reputation and created whatever damages resulted herself. Adult women, in my own opinion, are not helpless creatures totally at the mercy of more powerful men. Generally speaking, they’re just as capable as men at controling their own lives. They just have a somewhat different agenda, related to gender. They make their own choices. They have their own unique power. If anything, it’s that that men are sometimes afraid of. Another generalizatin: Men are in some respects weaker and more predictable than women, and smart women know this.
So your argument is that sexual harrassment in the workplace should just be ignored, and if she had just kept her mouth shut all would be ok?
Sorry, but if a man is pulling out his penis in closed quarters around me, I am going to be terrified of being raped. Why don’t you think about that situation a little bit? What if a man pulls out his penis in front of your wife/girlfriend/sister/mother at work? Are you just going to say ‘oh well’, just don’t make waves honey, you’ll embarrass yourself?
And he was not a drunken frat boy. He was a Governor, and I’ll assume sober at the time (to give him the benefit of the doubt).
As for the second half of your post, what does being sexually harrassed have to do with “controlling your own life”? Who said women were weak? I said Bill pulled his penis out, which he did. I don’t buy the weak willed man scenario either. That is a pathetic excuse that certain men like to use so that they can continue their disgusting behavior.
Wow, that’s the old “she was to blame” answer. Clinton had every opportunity to get away from that whole thing. A simple “No” would have sufficed. He could have also had her placed somewhere else. She waas an intern after all. He has no excuse for his behavior and you should be ashamed for trying to excuse it by blaming her.
Press reports at the time quoted a friend of Monica’s in CA who said that Monica had told her that she already had her “Presidential knee pads” packed. This was before she left for Washington. So the plan was long in the making, not just a horny guy taking advantage of a staffer. It was a long-term plan on the part of Monica to have sex with Bill Clinton. How many of you guys could resist a woman that determined to get your penis in her mouth? Not many, I think.
WTF does this post has to do with Bill Clinton?
It’s about Newt ‘I cheat on my wife while she’s dying of cancer in the hospital’ Gingrich.
Did Clinton made him do it? What’s your point?
Another Republican taking point was “he lied to the American People” what’s the difference.
I agree, the comparison is laughable…Newt didn’t have a doughy Grand bible thumping Inquisitor making sure he’d paid for neutralizing the opposition and ending with his victories the Republican golden (in their heads) era of Reagan. No extraction for Newt, no set-up, no persecution…Newt just went on banging while his wife was dying. For his transgressions of banging a STAFFER 25+/- years younger than he, Newt gets to be called a “bad” boy. But Bill, Bill lied about what he did with his private parts in consensual relations, now that is serious.
Did it ever occur to the offended that maybe Bill forgot, like Reagan forgot when questioned on the Iran-Contra operations. And Oliver North, what were his honest answers on the issue….
Entertaining and true.
I agree that Newt is yesterday’s news. I think he has put his foot in his mouth too often for it to be retrieved. So he will remain an effective pundit but do not expect him to run for office at any level.
“The Republicans seem to have a death wish and refuse to embrace the future.”
You can’t turn on elephant on a dime, so the transformation of the GOP will take some time but it is happening. The new leaders are not getting as much press as Rush, Newt, and Cheney because the mainstream media wants it that way to help Obama.
I do agree with Newt that Obama has already failed and his apologetic foreign policy is not reaping any rewards. The future of Democrats is based on Obama and Pelosi/Reid which is not good for them.
I think your comments are accurate. When Obama fails big media will go into the sewer along with him. No one can lie and distort reality continuously as they now do, without having it catch up with them. It is unavoidable. They will try to promote Crist, as a counter point to the Republican Party (statum im statum) just as they once promoted McCain. What the party needs at this point is someone who has the backbone and character to assert traditional Republican principles of free market, fiscal responsibility and national sovereignty against the utterly destructive policies of Mr. Obama. Crist is Neville Chamberlain
Why should the Republicans care, when they can get everything they want from the self-proclaimed “post-partisan” Democrats (especially the one who lives at 1600
Pennsylvania)?
“a complete, utter lightweight.” It’s exactly what both parties are looking for. George W. Bush=complete, utter lightweight; Barack Obama=complete, utter lightweight.
When I first heard in 2000 that some guy named George Bush was going to be the Republican candidate, I laughed out loud, thought it was a joke. After all, Bush I was an utter disaster. Look how wrong my instincts turned out to be. He was the darling of the party.
2008, read a headline article that my junior senator from IL, Barack Obama, a man who had been in the Senate one year had declared his decision to run for President. Again, I laughed, thought it was a joke. I actually thought he was trying to get name recognition and possibly a spot as VP. Boy was I wrong. He’s the darling of the re-invented Democratic Party.
So, Newt, I should have gone to breakfast with you at University of Georgia in May when I had the chance. No doubt, you’ll be the next occupant of the WH.
Canada? Monaco? French Riviera? Any other country?
You gotta stop laughing, Tek, the country can’t take much more of this. Heh.
FLDem: believe me, I’m not laughing anymore!
I shared those experiences. Laughing at Bush (43)as a virtual impossibility as the GOP candidate, and then Obama, the guy with no track record and the funny name from the South SIde. I thought, “who is gonna vote for a guy with an unpronouncable name?” Hillary had it in the bag. So who knows who it might be in 2012. THe more implausible, the better.
Well, SARAH take note! I too was taken for a grand ride by my X party until they drove off the edge while chugging their barackoolaid!
You my Dear should EXIT stage LEFT from your RIGHT OLD PARTY and try the UNA party with a LOTTTTTTTTT of us! We’d probably nominate you as our party leader in a heart beat!!! We’d SURE treat you better and probably enjoy the ride. Snowmachines anyone? This CAT & website need to be taken on a LONGGGGGG ride and dropped somewhere (RUGGED).
http://palingates.blogspot.com/2009/04/sarah-palins-arctic-cat-snow-mobile.html
Let’s see if they can figure out how to SURVIVE in another part of the REAL WORLD!
btw (I’m sure you know this Larry)
Gov. Palin was proven INNOCENT of all 14 ethics charges the drooling dems brought against her recently. So the MSNBO/CNN jealous as hell HACKS can Kiss MY GRIZZLIES!
(as they keep lying)
Good note, Larry.
And something that seems to get lost in the “official” analysis of such events as last night’s by political junkies and the insider media:
Who was actually watching the “scene” that a GOP “strategist” though was so bad for Governor Palin? The Republican bureaucracy, gathered at their own dinner. The insiders of the party. Those who are accustomed to, and fully expect to continue, anointing their “acceptable” group of nominees for election.
Meanwhile, Governor Palin, the person for whom the inside pooper scooper strategist thought this was such a “bad” scene - had days before pulled 20,000 people to a one-mile long parade in Auburn, NY.
The “powers” that wanna be (formerly the powers that be but with fast-draining batteries) might love Newt to pieces and swoon over his professorial pontifications from the GOP pulpit, but the Newt’s appeal does not extend beyond the front door of the banquet hall. If they could all just elect themselves, they’d likely be happy.
But, alas, there is this organism called a VOTER.
There’s something about this Palin lady (and I use the term to suggest her temperament as well as her sex) that they like. Sorry, Newt. That’s not a policy, it’s just a fact. Smoke-filled rooms and back-slapping cronies are just not that “in” these days.
Excellent post, IndieDogg. I agree that Sarah can inspire and attract voters, whereas Newt, although undeniably intelligent, is unlikely to appeal much beyond “the front door of the banquet hall.” As it happens, today Karl Denninger (who considers himself a “lifelong Republican”) published an article called “Republican Irrelevance,” in which he takes Gingrich to task for the economic bungling of the Republican Party:
http://market-ticker.denninger.net/archives/1099-Republican-Irrelevance.html
Whew! Denninger holds nothing back,oowawa. And this from the pen of a “lifelong Republican.”
As I said before, the Republicans have a lot of soul searching to do before they proclaim themselves Saviors of the Nation.
We [the American public] are so screwed!
If the Repubs push Newt as their candidate of choice, they are doomed and so are we to another 4 years(at least) of the koolaid gang. I hope some of the other Gop newcomers jump up and run with this. Palin, Sanford etc. need to assert themselves now. Palin seems to be cautiously pushing the envelope to see if the public is ready for them. I think they need to be more forceful right now before guys like Newt grab the reins and won’t let go. I sure wish we had a viable 3rd party for all of us in the middle to join along with these new Repub. emerging leaders and it needs to be big enough to cancel out the Republican party. Guess that’s just wishful thinking.
no newts is good newts…
haha, funny!
Folks,
The year of the Woman…2012!
The Republicans have run the course with the guys and now the women are stepping forward. They may be traditional but in numbers will do more for Fairness and equality than any of the Marxist’s on the Democrat side.
I’m, excited to see so many Republican women rising to the top. I’m especially happy to see Fox giving women the platform and even the daughters like Gingrich and Cheney. They are the future and us white guys couldn’t be happier about enabling them.
Go Sarah!
There have been a number of press reports that Gingrich either has converted or will convert to Catholicism, his most recent wife’s religion. Obama has a problem with maintaining the support of many, especially older, Catholic voters many of whom probably sat out the last election or voted for Obama-as-not-Bush. I can see someone like Gingrich reigniting the conservative, religious base that elected Bush. So if he were to be the Republican candidate in the next election, we would have a born again conservative hypocrite and a hypocritical, hopey, changey chameleon. Obama is already running for the next election. It’s interesting to watch his little gambits. If the Republicans are smart, they will let the dirt start flying post-haste. And, of course, it will help to have a positive, progressive agenda as well. I still like Sarah Palin. Maybe she could run with Gingrich as her VP, a la Dick Cheney.
After Obama has finished shredding the constitution, Charles Manson will have more appeal than BHO.
When and how has Obama shredded the constitution? That gets said often, but I’m a little vague about the particulars.
BTW, it looks as if PAYGO might be making a comeback. Imagine that! It’s already being spun as code language for increased taxes by the critics of Obama’s fiscal irresponsibility.
Sorry. If we want true fiscal responsibility in the future, increased taxes are going to be part of the picture. Just like spending cuts that are going to have some people howling. There’s just no other way it can be done. Do we want fiscal responsibility or not? A put-up-or-shut-up moment is coming for us all.
Obama is in the process of shredding the Constitution.
His 21 Czars circumvents checks and balances with House/Senate. Just ask Senator Byrd.
The executive branch manufactured sale/bankruptcy of Chrysler and soon GM are rightfully being challenged in the Supreme Court wher either the Obama terms will be discarded in favor of legal securities law or Obama will be forced to readjust to bring them into lawful boundaries.
PAYGO with increased taxes will be the end of Democratic rule in the next two years without Republicans doing anything. The alternative to increased taxes is decreasing taxes and limiting government expenditures.
The reckless spending splurge by Obama et al since coming into office has been clearly rejected by a majority of Americans and has had no positive effect on the economy. However it will likely result in a very extended and deep recession with unemployment reaching 11% and inflation becoming a new problem.
As Newt said, Obama has already failed.
It is set in stone that we will have inflation if not a second great depression. But, maybe that is the plan? Maybe in between his ears he thinks that if this were a second great depression, and if the media can blame it on Bush… then he can have four terms to deal with it? By any means necessary Barack… could be the plan. Or, it could be he doesn’t have a plan at all… in a perverse way, that gives me some comfort, though I am not sure why.
Hmmmm–how can O demonstrate his ability to out-president FDR unless he has a 2nd Great Depression to contend with? But there is also that matter of WWII–how can Thee One possibly win anything bigger than that? The grandstands are full of cheering adoring spectators–Game On!
Yes, I’m a little apprehensive . . .
I suppose we’ll never really know what the current state of the financial crisis would have been, without the assurances that the government would plug all the holes in the levee with however much money it would take. The entire financial system didn’t collapse. We didn’t have runs on the banks with across-the-board bank failures. The stock market stopped plummeting downward at 6500 and has rebounded. Job losses are slowing. Six months or so ago we were halfway expecting a total global catastrophe.
Whatever Newt says, I don’t consider this failure. A lot of perceptive Americans had a lot of sleepless nights considering what failure would actually look like.
“plug all the holes in the levee with however much money it would take”
That is the heart of the problem. You are assuming that government intervention is good for a recession. The fact is that the Great Depression proved that excessive government intervention is bad for the economy. And there have been a number of more recent examples with other recessions.
None of the Republicans in Congress voted for Obama’s reckless “stimulus” package which was just a massive patronage spending bill.
Obama sent us into far more excessive borrowing than all prior Presidents. The result will be an extended recession compounded by big inflation.
The only positive things we are seeing are a result from what was done at the end of the year under Bush, some actions by Obama in line with those polciies, and the natural trends of free market economics.
Everything in your comment is factually incorrect except the part about PAYGO in which you predict the future.
Ooops. This was supposed to be a reply to a comment made by hokma way up above.
Obama has 21 czars -fact.
Robert Byrd said his use of czars if unconstitutional - fact.
While they got away with the Chrysler sale, by subjugating primary bondholders to lowest status in the GM bankruptcy, that will be more successfully challenged and won. It violates every aspect of settled law in bankruptcy and sets a very dangerous precendent. - fact.
The so-called stimulus bill was only a patronage payoff spending bill which has not produced promised results (see Obama’s last manufactured press video). - fact
None of the House republicans voted for that bill. - fact.
PAYGO is not intended to reduce spending but to increase taxes in a number of ways as reported from the Hill. - fact
Americans across the country are clearly rejecting the over-spending by Obama from polling to the ballot boax. - fact
The only predicting at this point is that this will result in throwing the bums out of office. - good guess.
There are PLENTY of other ways. The Senate leadership could start working like sales managers and not ad men, get out there and create a working program by dealing with what’s in front of them, what they know they can deliver and get some R & D going with some of that stimulus. All that money O gave to the media to get himself elected kept them alive by the skin of their teeth. Instead of spending it to compete with the blogosphere in scooping the truth, they blew it trying to keep up appearances…like ANYbody really believed that hollow endorsement they all gave him for his “leadership.” We don’t make our college age kids responsible for our political judgement, a la Bob Casey and Carolyne Kennedy. We don’t accept Nora O Donnel’s gossip take on Palin’s appearance at a Party fundraiser as ‘news’ and we should certainly look twice when Andrea Mrs. Alan Greenspan Mitchell rides the Clinton Campaign plane and spins every move the “inevitable” nominee makes. Once the late “Boss” Russert was no longer on hand to provide moderation toward ethicality, it was the MOB JOB crushing the few legitimate leaders standing between them and paydirt.
Obummer is not only spinning PayGo as a policy, he now wants it to be the law. Seriously. Read this. Oh, some of the exempted costs include Medicare payments to doctors , the estate tax, the gift tax, and the tax cuts enacted in 2001 and 2002. Here is the link.
http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/06/09/obama.paygo/index.html
And Obummer managed to avoid giving Clinton any credit for PayGo, at least by name.
Then he contradicted himself, again.
If it worked in the nineties, then it wasn’t “elusive”, it was ignored. There is a big difference between the two.
Hmmm. Doesn’t Arianna Huffington looks a little bit like Patricial Krenwinkle (member of the Manson family)? Maybe you’re on to something here.
No, I didn’t know all this; I looked it up.
A little dark humor can lighten the day.
Of course, the swastika tattooed in the middle of Charlie’s forehead will put him at even more of a disadvantage than Barack Hussein Obama’s middle name . . .
I hear Arianna Huffington is the long lost Gabor sister….
Sarah is going to run am sure of it and the people will speak this time, so all the old farts like Newt, McCain, Mitt and Huck can take notice Sarah is going to be in the game.
SJ,
Sarah has earned her stripes and is ready to represent all of us who have been brought under the tyranny and oppression of this administration.
Sarah is gaining power at the expense of the Marxist’s who without relent have tried to destroy her. Sarah has survived every attack!. Now her resume includes hanging effigies and her church torched.
With every attack Sarah gains more power as she represents the
NEWLY DISENFRANCHISED.
Folks like me who no longer feel represented by my government and see the grave threats against my liberty and freedom.
Everyone now feels the effects of Neo Socialism and Sarah represents in pure form the backlash that will return us to our founding principles.
Don’t underestimate the power of Obama’s chaos creating machine. Chaos is moving right on schedule. The pathological liar is in full swing. Today he declared himself an administrative fiasco.
By the time the next elections come along, the country will be so chaotic Sarah will not be able to see straight. Unless you see crooked you won’t be able to walk straight.
then I guess I’ll be planning a move to ALASKA
maybe becoming an oasis away from all the insanity of the LOWER 48!!!
I hate the heat down here. I like the way she pays her people back with oil revenues every year! I like her new Attorney General.
It’s a BIG state. There’s probably room for me.
I had been noticing the return of Newt lately in the press. Yes, the good old days… Reaganomics… and the evil empire… Could be making a comeback, but so could tie died shirts and Jesus sandals… who knows? But, there is nothing that makes people nostalgic for the past more then abject failure. And, we know that is coming down on us. Myself, I think if Reagan were to be resurrected tomorrow, he couldn’t be “Reagan” outside of his time period. He was exactly right for us in his time, as was Clinton in his time, but for each of these men, their time has come and gone. For the most part, both of these men made the best of their window of time they had. Maybe Clinton could have found somebody on the side who didn’t work in the office. Other than that… good job overall. But to the point, Newt is a part of that past. His time has also come and passed I believe. But that may depend on how much of an abject failure Barack turns out to be, and how evil of an empire N. Korea and Iran turn out to be, or whether Barack manages to reunite the cold war with Russia and China. He is certainly capable of screwing that up along with everything else he touches. Yes he can.
If they know what’s good for them and the country, they will stop resisting pushing back Governor Palin and embrace her.
Everytime she is the one winning, capturing the affection and attention, they try to throw out another MALE…Whether white, brown or other.
Governor Palin’s solid credentials, principles and record with her fiscal responsibility is the core of what the Repubs claimed they wanted to be, what a majority of the people in this country want and currently what the Republicans have. They better wise up fast or money will dry up faster.
If I hear they are giving the young Congressman, Newt or Jindal another hi public spot, I’m going to puke.
Newt gave 1 hour speech that bored the heck out of the people that many left before he finished.
Its interesting that the MSM did fair and balanced coverage of her in that dinner (CNN, WaPO, Time) and yet GOP hacks started dumping on her in their pitiful rants in the GOP media (The Hill, Congress Quarterly).
The guy who wrote this is the press secretary of Kay Bayley Hutchison who’s running against Rick Perry, who Gov.Palin endorsed. Hence, the heartburn.
Palin was only marginalized at the dinner with a low key role because the organizers who chose and promoted Gingrich as the primary speaker of the evening did not want any attention taken away from him. I think he plans on running for something again and this is his continuing testing the water with his big toe to see if he could be viable again. He didn’t want competition so that’s why Palin was shuttled to the side. And anyone who saw Palins policy address on energy or special needs children when she was a VP candidate knows the woman can give a speech on the issues she knows and cares about. I doubt the crowd would be as bored with her as with Gingrich.
I know some attendees there hate Palin because she doesn’t fit what they think the Republican party needs as they try to go more moderate but the woman can draw a crowd and generate some interest. Whereas Gingrich is a snooze.
The idea that Gov Palin is an extreme rightie or radical is laughable. No, I know YOU didn’t say that, but referring to lefties or righties making such inference.
She is a principled Conservative. She conserves, she is fiscally responsible and rids excess and corruption. HELLOOO? She believe the government should aid the country and the people, ie build roads, create job opportunities. The idea that her pro Life/anti abortion is radical will have to be explained to many Democrats and inde’s.
If that’s the determining factor for Democrat or Moderate republican, our politicians will be in trouble. As Harry Reid, Schwarzenegger, Casey etc.
Didn’t Palin appoint a woman pro-choice judge over a woman anti-abortion judge? In contrast, Obama’s choice for SCOTUS is still a bit of a mystery in terms of where she actually stands on the abortion issue.
And while she takes on her critics directly and unafraid, she never degrades or insults them. She has a kind heart and compassion for those who are less fortunate. She absolutely loves America. Big difference from the left wing loons and the bitter old guard of her own party. She has class, grace, is articulate, intelligent and is a good, fair manager. If she can somehow get the media, some at least, to actually report her accurately and fairly, she is a good bet to upset the Obama apple cart. If the repubs don’t get this they are in a hopeless situation.
In total agreement. Newt is a political lamprey. I like how he latched onto Rush’s “I hope Obama fails” comment now, but when it happened he hoped Obama would succeed. Agree with the statement or not, Newt’s only interested in buzz worthy words when it bolsters his political career.
I would like to think that his films on God in America and Reagan are sincere, but I fear that they are solely to gain the support of the GOP base. He follows trends and uses them to his advantage.
It’s not just Palin they’re against, it’s all women with true leadership potential. The powers that be, whoever “they” are — the ones who foisted BO on us — don’t want any women right now . Misogyny is IN and it’s no cultural accident.
If and when “they” do permit a women to appear to compete, she won’t be an actual strong woman whose popularity stems from her own confidence, smarts and talent — like Hillary, or in a different way, Sarah Palin. She’ll be a packaged phenomenon, a front-girl version of Obama, reading from a teleprompter (by then there’ll be teleprompter brain implants) to the sound of phoney cheers. And whatever she looks like and whatever she says, she’ll be the sexiest, smartest-but-not-intimidating woman men ever saw.
*****A
Larry,
I agree with you about Newt and his hypocritical behavior. What a jerk. Just the other day, I found my old Newt Gingrich doggie chew toy. It can still get some use.
I was completely upset with Clinton over his inability to stay away from the girls. (Try to teach high school students when that type of story is what they constantly want to bring in for the mandatory government news reports.) But I was also angry for the way this issue was treated as more important than other issues at the time by the Repugs.
But, I look back over my many years of voting, and the people I admired and whom I can still admire are very few in number. Our system just corrupts somehow.
I have NEVER been a registered Republican. I will raise a hornets’ nest with this link, but it says what I think about Reagan, too. It’s why I gagged when I heard O claim to want to be like Reagan, though now he’s determined to be Kennedy. (Who knows who he will try to imitate next.)
But I am left with no Party to depend on at this point.
I am just depressed by our entire political system. Is there no politician or political party to trust. I still do trust Hillary–but I do want to cry every time she says something nice about O.
Here’s the link, though it’s OT, about Reagan. I do think it expresses my feeling about when things really began to go wrong in politics:
http://baltimorechronicle.com/2009/060309Parry.shtml
great article
very accurate
lets see anyone dispute it
Larry:
I think you’re spot on about NG. He had his shot with the infamous “Contract On America” and blew it big time. At this point only the old neocons think he’s relevant anymore. Sure he’ll make a run for the 2012 Republican nomination but I predict that will go absolutely nowhere.
Snark Alert: To those above who are apparently still concerned about the GPS location of BC’s penis. I didn’t notice any of your names connected with trying to impeach GWB over lying us into Iraq - and killing almost 5,000 US soldiers as a result. Oh, that’s right, I forgot: IOKIYAR (It’s OK If You’re A Republican).
It always gets me that the “I Hate All Things Clinton” crowd really expect to be taken seriously.
You know what happened in 2008? The democrats played Republican games (probably with Rove’s assistance). I do not care for any of them, quite frankly. If you have to step on the backs of people below to get to power, you are not a leader. A leader lifts people up! Also, I do not care a wit who has sex with who and who is the injured spouse. That has nothing to do with how you do your job. Bill Clinton was probably the best President ever and the only time since, what, the 20’s, that we’ve had a surplus in this country. I was not happy about what Bill did, but it was Hillary’s business and no one else’s. That said, I don’t care if they are using prostitutes 10 times per day in office as long as they are taking care of this country and it’s citizens. We need to stop worrying about personal mistakes that people make when we decide to vote. People had better start looking at who has the know how, experience and record to get things done. That’s all I care about. Who he’s sleeping is only of concern to me if I wanted to marry the person. If I had a boss who was a good boss and he treated his employees well and the company was thriving and I found out he or she was cheating on their spouse, I’d still want them to be my boss. That is the bottom line.
As a lifetime Democrat, these last 2 years have been
really eye opening. I voted for McCain because I thought he was a good guy and Palin was a good choice as a running mate.
Now I feel like it’s an obligation to myself to read the historical writings about Reagan and other
presidents. I don’t care if they’re Republicans or
Democrats, there really isn’t much difference anymore
is there and I wonder if there ever was.
We need a new leader and the Republicans just aren’t
producing one yet. I’d love to see a woman step forward now to lead . It’d be a refreshing change.
I know she’d be pummeled to death with BS from the
old pols. and the MSM, but a good leader could do it.
Whether that’s Palin or not, I can’t determine yet.
Don’t forget how Clinton owned Newt’s ass in the budget negotiations in 1995. Newt thought he could push Clinton with cuts, the government shut down and the public blamed Newt’s partisanship after he complained about not getting a nice seat on Air Force One. Clinton played him. That move probably won him reelection.
God (and I don’t mean the POTUS) only knows what will happen between now and 2012 that will influence my voting decisions.
But at this point I can say I won’t be casting my precious vote for the POTUS even if the GOP fielded an actual smelly, cannonball-defecating elephant to run against him (and my bet is it won’t be Newt Gingrich).
The Republicans would serve their cause best in 2012 by adopting/adhering to a plan to honor former President Ronald Reagan’s 11th Commandment…not all of them can be the eventual nominee, but they all can do their best to ensure that the eventual nominee isn’t marginalized by petty infighting. Any man or woman who is brave enough to take on the media darling Obama in 2012 will need all the help they can get. Once upon a time in America talk was cheap, but between Obama and his teleprompter talk is in and “The Buck Stops Here” brand of leadership seems to be out.
Obama is a good talker.
The old white male establishment in both party and the media are working overtime to crush women leaders. But why?
What is it about American women that scare American men so much? I mean really, we are in the dark ages compared to most countries as far as women in position of leadership.
The vitriol over Sara Palin and Hillary Clinton is not just strong disagreement. That kind of derangement can only come from fear. But fear of what?
What could these women or any women do that is so damn scary?
I just don’t get it.
It’s insecurity mainly… Men are very fearful of strong,competent women. Then being physically attractive is even worse.
Men are weak.
It’s not just the men…there are plenty of women who have been super critical of Palin. And the more I hear negative remarks from the pompous and self-appointed experts, the more I support Sarah Palin. She’s the real deal and that’s what scares them.
Yes you’re right. The derangement didn’t just infect men. But I actually think many women have taken a step back and regret having participated and/or looked away. The women are living with the results - an ever lowering standard of acceptable behavior towards themselves and other women.
But what has been the negative consequences for men? What will change their behavior?
That’s an unfair generalization about men. That all of the support Sarah Palin got worried me had nothing whatsoever to do with the fact that I’m male and she’s female. It had to do with my opinion that she wasn’t qualified to be an elderly man’s heartbeat away from the presidency.
I would have voted for Hillary Clinton in the blink of an eye.
Are you saying you voted for an even less qualified “man” for the top job instead?????
Why is it qualifications were only important for the VP slot, not the POTUS position?
This always mystifies me. People claim they were afraid of having Alaska’s governor as VP but had absolutely NO FEAR of having a Chicago community organizer as the leader of the free world. He had been a senator for only a year when he began campaigning for PRESIDENT! Palin clearly had much more experience than Obama and she was running as VP and wasn’t even in the race until August. The venom directed at her (I will never forget those horrible pink T-shirts!) was almost applauded by many in the press. Whether the motivating cause is anti-woman, anti-westerner, anti-Horatio Alger story…whatever it is, it came across as a bigoted elitism to me. She took a beating and kept coming back. That shows me what kind of character she has. Palin earned my respect and my vote.
BRAVO and DITTO!
Indiana Dem, I think the main objection regarding Palin was the way she was treated by the Far Left and the press. I personally never bought into the idea that McCain was on his deathbed. The man trekked the Grand Canyon shortly before the primaries and one look at his mother convinced me he comes from very good stock. Yes, I know he’s battled melanoma but the man ran circles around people half his age.
However, the attacks on Palin were very similar to the attacks on Clinton. And those attacks were viciously sexist, made by men and women alike. The one thing I learned after the election cycle of 2008 is that despite what many people say sexism is alive and well in the United States. Linda A. is right on target–this country likes to pound its chest about how advanced we are in terms of human rights. But when it comes down to the nitty-gritty, the old time misogyny comes crawling out of the woodwork.
I agree that Sarah Palin does not have the qualifications that Hillary Clinton has. But neither woman deserved to be treated the way they were, accused of all manner of slimy things, called filthy names or had their families attacked.
The Obamatrons may want to rewrite history but there were witnesses to what they did. And we haven’t forgotten.
I don’t deny that a great many attacks on Palin were total distortions and totally unfair. For those she has my sympathy. And yes, sexism is alive and well, alas, and there were obvious elements of that. Hillary Clinton also had that to contend with, and I have no doubt it would have gotten much worse had she been the democratic candidate in November. (The far-right would have savaged her unmercifully with their entire repertoire of historical Clinton hatred, but did a U-turn when they saw being nicer about her could be used as a wedge to further split divided democrats.) Still, I’m not one for sympathy votes. I strongly disapprove of Palin’s positions on a number of issues, didn’t believe she was knowledgeable enough to be president, and saw McCain/Palin as the continuation of 8 years of failing attitudes and policies.
American politics isn’t about fair play. All isms are shamelessly exploited. Obama was also unfairly targeted with rumors and groundless assertions. Racism was always in the background, along with matters of relgious orientation, alleged sexual orientation, etc. The most mileage possible was gotten out of the word terrorism. Obama was savaged with one of the most negative republican media campaigns I can remember–which I suspect lost the republicans a tremendous amount of support among undecided voters. While there certainly were and are “Obamtrons”, that part of 2008 election history exists independent of their spin.
Trust me, Indiana, I don’t believe in “pity votes.” I voted for Hillary Clinton in the primaries because I was convinced she was the best candidate in the field. The fact that she was a woman was a plus.
I voted for McCain not because he was a Republican but because I thought he was the only reasonable choice we were given. As far as racism, there were innumerable charges of racism against everyone and anyone who refused to support Obama. I had them leveled against me. I rejected my own party in 2008 because I simply did not believe in the Obama’s readiness or rhetoric.
Still don’t, and unfortunately, he’s proving me correct.
Yes, there’s plenty of fingers to point all around. But I will never forgive the DNC for what they did last year. I come from a long line of Democrats. But the party lost my loyalty when they proved themselves equal only to their Republican mentors.
IndianaDem
What a bunch of crock about Sarah Palin! Palin is more qualified to be VP than Obama the Serial Liar.
Card Check, Nationalizing GM/Chrysler, trillion dollar deficits are signs that this country is going in the wrong direction.
Well, Sarah Palin certainly isn’t the answer.
absolutely she IS
seek the truth
read the facts
watch the twisting, flailing Obots reactions to her! THAT is all the proof I need!
They are scared as hell of her
Jealous of her GREAT ratings in her state and her accomplishments as Governor (of the biggest state btw)
They are sooooo scared of her it’s getting really hilarious to watch. Especially the really obvious woman haters! She’s like kryptonite to their tired old fat boys club.
Can you say Tina Fay? Sorry, but there’s been too many jokes about her. The left has ruin her as a politician.
Personally, I’m glad that the Republicans realize this. Maybe Palin will eventually be able to correct this problem in the future but it won’t be anytime soon.
I agree, Ame. I admire Palin’s backbone but she is not the answer.
larry- i am in total agreement. and during the primaries, he seemed to favor “the one” over hillary! that was very unsettling. he seems to go with which every way the wind happens to blow.
I love how you 5 people on this site sit around bashing President Obama…..you are so full of it. You will vote against your own interest. You were a Democrat until Obama won….then all of a sudden, you’d vote for Sarah Palin (who can barely read)……so please, give it up with trying to pretend that there are many of you. On this site, it’s the same of three people whining OVER AND OVER, trying to pretend that there is some vast amount of folks against President Obama…..you guys are funny…..stupid and silly, but still funny……..yawn…..
Oh nonsense. There are at least 6 of us whining here. And Sarah can read. And, when the tele-prompter fails, she can even make a speech. She’s a natural and that has everyone, even David Letterman, so scared out of their boxers and briefs.
Right ON Mandelay!
Millions of us. And many more every day.
Really? Please tell me how it was in your interest to vote for Obama. I would like to know the specific policies which will benefit you. I’m sure that you have been following his every move and researching the implications of his policies, so I really want to hear from you. Do not hesitate to blow me away with your intellect and logic. Maybe you are still believing the lie that taxes aren’t going up. Wait and see. If you take it from Bucket A instead of Bucket B, you’re still taking it. Sometimes you need a little history and experience to know a huge lie when you see one.
The problem with both parties is they are always searching for an “IDENTITY” but underneath they still have the same ideological base.
The Dims went with the “Change” brand because most people were sick of W. It worked…this time. But the W policies for which oBlunder railed against so hard are the same ones he continues to leave intact. FISA, Torture, Troop levels.
The Pugs are struggling between the Neo-Con Newts and the Pretty Palin Progress. Everybody knows Newt is the old fart who is just another beltway blowhard. But Palin appeals to a lot of people because she’s different, aka gender identification. But I would assert her policies/beliefs aren’t that different from any other ‘conservative’ Republican. Yes, she’s tried to clean up Alaska, but that won’t matter to people with strong opinions about the age-old wedge issues of health care, religion and abortion.
I do not like the sexist bashing of Palin but even more unforgiveable is the attacks on her female children—the latest victim being Willow. Since when did it become ok for the Lettermans, Stewarts and pundits to take aim and fire at children of candidates—whatever their age.
The GOP is truly a dinosaur of a political party. It’s amazing to watch them grasping for past glory with Newt Gingrich. Until the party moderates toss out these old, failed, farts, they’re never going to have political power. People are sick of their faces and their lies.
And, so am I.
I honestly wish for a Republican party I could support; I likewise wish for a Democratic Party I could support. But neither party even comes close to the policy/ethical/domestic/foreign leadership I require to cast my vote ever again.
I’ve come to the very sad conclusion that collaborating in the political system in this country only furthers the conspiracy to defraud the American people of their Constitutional rights and their treasury. So, I’m not voting anymore. I wish everyone would just stop voting, and collaborating in the systemic sickness. But I know people will not comprehend the power that message would have, and they’ll continue to assert meaningless blather like “Oh, no, you have to vote!”
I know that because I did the same thing for years to others who had long before concluded what I have now realized: Our Democratic Republic is Dead.
Mountainnaires. You are wrong. The key is not to stop voting but to continually vote out the people in office be they dems or repubs when they do not keep the best interest of the people in mind with their policies, etc. Just think how afraid of the voters they would be if we voted for the best candidates, the ones in my opinion who:
1. “raised the least amount of money” knowing that they would be the least corrupted by the powerful (less money = less corruption
2. least name recognition
3. least amount of senority (= least corruption)
4. were voted on irregardless of party affilliation
WHEN WE VOTERS BEGIN TO START A VOTING REVOLUTION WITH THOSE PRECEPTS IN MIND, WE WILL HAVE A DIFFERENT OUTCOME IN POLICIES, ETC.
Let’s start the revolution in the next election cycle and watch their heads explode.
re: Newt…been there, done that. Let’s have a new right-wing demagogue for a change.
Yes, somebody who is not a lawyer, and somebody not educated in either Harvard or Yale please. Somebody “real” would be a nice change.