Newt Gingrich lures voters with rage directed towards the media
Newt apparently gave South Carolina Republicans the red meat they sought. He took on members of the press and blasted them. He did it twice. First he roared at Juan Williams, ironically of Fox News, and then he went Rumpelstiltskin on John King of CNN. His audiences loved it.
Let’s take a look at what happened with Williams. Days before, while in New Hampshire, Newt announced that if he were asked to addressed the NAACP, he would carry on the following conversation from cbsnews.com:
Gingrich, during an appearance in Plymouth, New Hampshire, spoke about remarks he would theoretically make if invited to speak to the NAACP.
“I’m prepared, if the NAACP invites me, I’ll go to their convention and talk about why the African American community should demand paychecks and not be satisfied with food stamps,” Gingrich said.
The former House speaker has made a habit of calling President Obama the “food stamp president” — a nickname he used on Thursday as well — and has often painted the contrast between himself and Mr. Obama as a choice between paychecks and food stamps.
“The fact is, if I become your nominee we will make the key test very simple: Food stamps versus paychecks,” Gingrich said. “Obama is the best food stamp president in American history. More people are on food stamps today because of Obama’s policies than ever in history. I would like to be the best paycheck president in American history.”
Juan Williams who was a debate moderator posed the following question to Gingrich last Monday:
Newt used the opportunity to go on the attack. He gets it. Newt lived in Georgia. He is speaking code. The Fox Five didn’t get it. He said he was going to address the NAACP. When he targets that group as his audience, it becomes racial, regardless of denials and regardless of trying to convince us all it is about economics.
Newt can use all the mock rage he wants. He doesn’t fool me and he doesn’t fool Juan Williams. Juan Williams is correct. He didn’t answer the question. The Food Stamp president indeed!
Gingrich directed his mock rage at the media again targeting John King who asked the question if he would like to say anything to say about the second Mrs. Gingrich’s interview with ABC news. He said no but he would. Apparently once again the audience loved his attack on the media.
It leaves me with the distinct impression that many (NOT ALL) Republicans in South Carolina care more about telling off the media and beating President Obama than they do any principles. Am I wrong?
Colbert Cain Rally: Serious message using comedy
Stephen Colbert kept Joe Scarborough in stitches Friday morning as he prepared for his rally with former presidential candidate, Herman Cain. Colbert is using comedy to illustrate the very serious and destructive nature of the Super Pacs which seem to have taken over the election process with little or no accountability. According to the Washington Post:
Calling himself the “Martin Luther King of corporation civil rights,” Colbert said that in a time maybe not everyone in the audience could remember — two years ago — corporations were sadly limited in the amount of money they could pour into political campaigns.
But that changed, he said, when “five courageous justices” on the Supreme Court ruled in the 2010 Citizens United decision that “corporations are people,” that people are entitled to free speech, that free speech equals money and that corporations should thus be entitled to dump as much money as they like into the political water table, provided they don’t coordinate with the campaigns they’re funding.
It’s the super PACs that are funding the flood of negative ads that the candidates all say they hate, even though the Citizens United decision was widely praised by Republicans.
Then Colbert asked the crowd, which included people of all ages and political persuasions, to send a message about super PACs by voting for Cain, who is still on the ballot here, though he suspended his campaign for the GOP presidential nomination. And, somehow, both Republicans and Democrats were charmed.
and…
The event — dubbed the “Rock Me Like a Herman Cain South Cain-olina Primary” — began with a gospel rendition of “The Star-Spangled Banner,” with Colbert harmonizing, followed by the Pledge of Allegiance and the crowd shouting, “U.S.A.! U.S.A.!”
Colbert sends a very serious message. Hopefully Americans will rise up and grab back their own influence over elections. Super PACs seemed to take everyone by surprise. Any strong feelings on super PACs? Perhaps this is an area for common ground. So far, the Republicans have been more manipulated by Super PACs than Democrats.
Newt goes nuclear during the debate
Why on earth lead off with a question like that? Furthermore, who cares if he wants to swing, have an open marriage or a menage a trois. I could care less as long as he stays off other people’s values. There is the big IF. Looking back at famous Newt video footage, he is the paladin of marriage and values in his rhetoric.
More importantly, Newt has turned his rage on the politics of accountability. No one championed for truth, goodness and the American way during the Lewinsky affair more than Newt Gingrich. Yet at the time, he as well as many others were engaing in similar behaviors. Pot, meet kettle.
Rage is not becoming to Mr. Gingrich. He needs to take his punishment like a good boy. If it comes at an inconvenient time to him, perhaps he should have thought of timing when he asked both ex-wives for a divorce.
In many respects, King was being very fair to him. Marianne had given interviews to the Washington Post and to ABC. Newt was given a chance to speak to the issue which had to be fresh on everyone’s mind. He was asked if he cared to respond. There were no accusations. He was pretty much of a D—
There is a part of me that simply doesn’t care about Newt’s personal life. There is another part of me that really resents his public outrage. He has lost his right to be angry. At least he doesn’t have a penchant for hotties. MEOW.
Marianne Gingrich Interview–can it end his political career?
Supposedly Marianne Gingrich, Newt’s second wife, has said that she could give an interview that could end his political career. When interviewed by Esquire in 2010, this did not happen. Is Marianne blowing smoke or what?
Tonight ABC is supposed to air parts of a 2 hour interview with Marianne Gingrich. Details are sketchy at best. It seems unlikely that there will be anything all that revealing. Both of his daughters have issued a statement:
To: ABC News Leadership
From: Kathy Lubbers, Jackie Cushman
Date: January 18, 2012The failure of a marriage is a terrible and emotional experience for everyone involved. Anyone who has had that experience understands it is a personal tragedy filled with regrets, and sometimes differing memories of events.
We will not say anything negative about our father’s ex-wife. He has said before, privately and publicly, that he regrets any pain he may have caused in the past to people he loves.
ABC News or other campaigns may want to talk about the past, just days before an important primary election. But Newt is going to talk to the people of South Carolina about the future — about job creation, lower taxes, and about who can defeat Barack Obama by providing the sharpest contrast to his damaging, extreme liberalism. We are confident this is the conversation the people of South Carolina are interested in having.
Our father is running for President because of his grandchildren — so they can inherit the America he loves. To do that, President Obama must be defeated. And as the only candidate in the race, including Obama, who has actually helped balance the national budget, create jobs, reform welfare, and cut taxes and spending, Newt felt compelled to run — to serve his country and safeguard his grandchildren’s future.
That is a pretty powerful letter. Gingrich was involved in a relationship with his present third wife while still married to Marianne. He apparently doesn’t always say the smartest thing when it comes to women, according the Huffington Post:
According to an extensive profile in Esquire, he told Marianne Gingrich that she was a “Jaguar” and that “all I want is a Chevrolet.” That brought him to his third marriage to Callista Gingrich, who was a House staffer when she began an affair with her eventual husband.
DUH! I wonder how Callista likes being compared to a Chevrolet?
Word on the street it that the interview will be a segment on Nightline tonight. Obviously the interview is meant to deal a blow to the Newt Gingrich campaign. Is it possible to do him harm? Could this be the end of the line for the Gingrich-ster? My guess is that Newt has at least 9 lives and whatever Marianne has to say will be unlikely to have much influence of potential primary voters.
What are these super pacs and are they a danger to the American election process?
From daveManuel.com :
What is a “superPAC”? What is the definition of the term “superPAC”?
The “superPAC” is a relatively new beast that emerged as a result of two court rulings, including an important 2010 ruling by the Supreme Court.
The “superPAC”, which is officially known as an “independent expenditure-only committee”, has become an increasingly popular method of influence for special interest groups.
The “superPAC” is like a traditional PAC (Political Action Committee) without many of the restrictions. For instance, a “superPAC” can raise and spend unlimited amounts of money for the sole purpose of supporting or opposing political candidates.
A “superPAC” can directly attack a political candidate. The only caveat is that a “superPAC” is not allowed to coordinate directly with candidates or political parties.
The “superPAC” will be an extremely crucial part of the 2012 Presidential election.
Where does this money come from and why isn’t the alarm sounding because someone other than the voters are influencing our elections? Surely these aren’t individuals. Is a super pac a corporation? A union? A special intest group?
I do not like this phenomena.
A Super-Pac seems unAmerican to me. Am I alone having these thoughts?
Telethon for Electorial-distrophy
| The Daily Show With Jon Stewart | Mon – Thurs 11p / 10c | |||
| Indecision 2012 – Two Debates, One GOP | ||||
|
||||
Will it ever be over? Pious Bologna! Newt Gingrich can dish it out, when he plays “Johnny 3-Wives”
Is everyone tired of the debates? Will they run out of things to talk about? I have stopped watching and just catch the reruns.
Who is going to come out the winner of all this and will the voters just be totally sick of all of them?
Santorum deflects controversial questions
Pretty much everything I have seen thrown at Santorum ends up being deflected by the one time senator. Rather than address the questions being asked, Santorum often throws a curve ball by asking another question, not the one being posed, and goes off on a a tangent, as is seen here with the question about multiple marriage.
Unlike Romney, Santorum will end up turning voters off because of his extreme religious positions that he insists on keeping in the public light. Romney, on the other hand, freely admits that he is a Mormon but doesn’t shove his beliefs in everyone’s face.
O’Reilly called Santorum out on his position on contraception. He asked Santorum if he was ready to be demonized over things like this. Again, Santorum played the deflection game.
The culture warrior issues will defeat Santorum because he is far from the mainstream and simply refuses to accept that while people may carry whatever belief they want, these beliefs have no business being part of public policy.
How far to you think Santorum will go? I think he will get sent home from New Hampshire with his tail between his legs.
Cucinelli flip flops again
Last week Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli was all about writing legislation to reduce the standards involved to get on the Virginia primary ballot. He felt the Virginia standards were too strict and put candidates and voters at a serious disadvantage. In fact, he planned to write legislation for the General Assembly to pass before the primary in March.
That was last week. Today Cuccinelli has flip flopped. According to the Richmond Times Dispatch:
Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli announced Sunday night that he has reconsidered and no longer backs emergency legislation that would seek to get additional candidates on the ballot for Virginia’s March 6 Republican primary.
“I obviously feel very strongly that Virginia needs to change its ballot-access requirements for our statewide elections,” Cuccinelli said in a statement.
“However, after working through different scenarios with Republican and Democratic leaders to attempt to make changes in time for the 2012 presidential election, my concern grows that we cannot find a way to make such changes fair to the Romney and Paul campaigns that qualified even with Virginia’s burdensome system.
“A further critical factor that I must consider is that changing the rules midstream is inconsistent with respecting and preserving the rule of law — something I am particularly sensitive to as Virginia’s attorney general.”
I am glad Cuccinelli has flip flopped. Regardless of how difficult the Virginia law is, having high standards can’t be all bad. Two candidates met the requirements. To allow others in the race with lower standards simply isn’t fair. Its like the teacher who gives a homework assignment over the weekend, sees that half the class doesn’t have it and gives everyone an extra day, even though serious students had theirs on Monday.
If the Virginia law is too burdensome, and it very well might be, then lawmakers should make the necessary adjustments, to go into effect after this primary. That’s really the only fair thing to do to Romney and Paul who dotted all their i’s and crossed all their T’s ahead of time.
Republicans to require loyalty oath
From the Richmond Times Dispatch:
The state Republican Party will require voters to sign a loyalty oath in order to participate in the March 6 presidential primary.
Anyone who wants to vote must sign a form at the polling place pledging to support the eventual Republican nominee for president. Anyone who refuses to sign will be barred from voting in the primary.
During a brief meeting Wednesday at the state Capitol, the State Board of Elections voted 3-0 to approve three forms developed by the election board’s staff to implement the loyalty pledge requested by the state GOP.
Is that even legal? I thought that Virginia primaries were open to any registered voter, regardless of party. If Republicans want to keep their votes ‘pure’ it seems to me that they should have a convention primary. That’s a little easier to keep the ‘riff raff’ out of.
I expect there will be legal challenges. If I were a Republican, I would not like being held to the standard of voting for anyone who happens to win the nomination. In fact, that was one reason I left the Democrats. I didn’t like having to pledge a vote.
If Republicans want to keep their primary pure, then they need to change the state laws so that one must register as either a Democrat or Republican to be able to vote in a primary (or some other combination for third party Independents). Until that happens, I would say that any registered voter should get to vote in an election.
From the State Board of Elections website:
Can I vote for candidates from different parties?
Virginia is an open primary state which means that any qualified voter can vote in either party’s primary election. Virginia does not have party registration in its voter registration process. In other words, citizens do not designate a political party affiliation when registering to vote in Virginia. The only restriction is when more than one party primary is held on the same day, also known as a dual primary. While Virginia election law stipulates that any qualified voter may voter in either political party’s primary, no voter may vote in more than one political party’s primary on the same election day.If I vote in a particular party’s primary, will my voter registration records become affiliated with that party?
No. Voting in any party’s primary election in Virginia does not affiliate the voter with either of the political parties. The fact that you voted in the party’s primary becomes part of your voting history but, does not affiliate you with either political party. Voting in a party’s primary does not hinder the voter’s choices in future elections (primary or general). (Emphasis mine)
Extremism takes over some GOP Iowa caucus hopefuls
Rick Perry has decided that he was been wrong about abortion. After watching Mike Huckabee’s video on abortion, he has decided that the government does have a right to force a woman to bear a child that was conceived from rapeand/ or incest. He was unclear about whether life of the mother should be discarded in favor of the fetus.
My question is, when is it going to end? If the new Perry position isn’t extreme enough, perhaps one of the big Ron Paul supporters is. IN fact, the Ron Paul campaign is doing nothing to distance itself from this YoYo, reported by outsidethebeltway.com :
Four years ago, the Ron Paul campaign generated controversy by not repudiating the endorsement of the neo-Nazi group Stormfront, but at least back then they didn’t actually promote the fact that they had received the endorsement. This time, though, they seem pretty proud about getting the support of a Nebraska Pastor who has made some pretty vile comments:
Newt, the Virginia Candidate
Totally disgusted and grossed out here….Newt is calling himself the Virginia Candidate. Newt is not a Virginian. I don’t know what he is but he isn’t a Virginian. My people would have probably called him a scalawag.
Unfortunately, legally Newt is a Virginian. He lives in McLean and is registered to vote there. Those with a discerning eye are watching Gingrich very closely to see if he changes his voter registration. If he does, that is an indicator that if selected to be the Republican candidate, he would chose Governor Bob McDonnell as his running mate. The 12th amendment prohibits electoral college members from casting a vote for 2 candidates from the same state. Since McDonnell is the current governor of Virginia, it isn’t likely that he would change his voter registration. Newt would have to be the one. Bush and Cheney ran into the same problem.
Meanwhile, former Virginia Democratic Committee chair Paul Goldman is the attorney assisting Gingrich in his fight to get on the Virginia ballot for the March 6 primary. Maybe Gingrich is so mad at Virginia he will just move. Ya think?
Gingrich compares Virginia setback to Pearl Harbor
From Capitol Hill Blue:
Former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich‘s campaign director is comparing the candidate’s failure to get his name on Virginia’s Republican primary ballot for 2012 to the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor in December 1941.
That’s right. Gingrich’s inability to take the necessary steps to qualify for a ballot is, in his campaign’s view, similar to an surprise attack that killed thousands of Americans and triggered the nation’s entry into World War II.
Gingrich campaign director Michael Krull posted on Facebook:
Newt and I agreed that the analogy is December 1941. We have experienced an unexpected setback, but we will regroup and refocus with interested determination, commitment and positive action. In the end, we will stand victorious.
The Virginia Republican Party was less dramatic in its reasoning for why Gingrich failed to make the ballot. The campaign simply did not collect the required number of verifiable signatures: 10,000 overall including at least 400 from each Congressional district.
The Great Right Hope: Newt even grosses out Glenn Beck
Jon Stewart helps Republican primary voters come to grips with what they are about to do and tries to steer them around making this decision. He tries to convince them that Newt isn’t Reagan. Newt is what Reagan would have been if he had been plucked out of his home as a babe and raised by cactuses. Newt Gingrich is NOT the Great Right Hope.
| The Daily Show With Jon Stewart | Mon – Thurs 11p / 10c | |||
| Indecision 2012 – The Great Right Hope – Newt Gingrich | ||||
|
|
||||
Seriously, when you gross Glenn Beck out, there is no where to go but up.
| The Daily Show With Jon Stewart | Mon – Thurs 11p / 10c | |||
| Intervention 2012 | ||||
|
|
||||
In many respects, this is old news. On the other hand, Newt’s arrogance is like watching a well orchestrated train wreck. You just cannot turn away. What is the likelihood Newt will win the party nomination? If not Newt, then who will carry the standard for the GOP?
So who won the debate? Were there winners and losers? Did Bachmann look presidential?
Rick Perry goes Brokeback Mountain on us: Is there no end to affrontery?
Ewwwwww, Rick. Just Ewwwwwww. He sounds like a commercial for Westboro Baptist Church.
WHAT is he talking about? Gays in the military has what to do with Christmas? What children aren’t allowed to celebrate Christmas? Why is President Obama being blamed for any of this?
Even Rick Perry’s staff was divided over this political ad. So is it the bad taste ad of the political season?
How about Ron Paul’s ad? Pretty clever. I liked the shih tzu dog part.
Someone needs to tell Rick Perry that victim mentality just isn’t very presidential. This ‘war on Christmas’ BS is just that. I have never felt that I can’t celebrate Christmas.
