"Most of the military love President Bush."

Talk about voting against your vested interest!

Philo,

Yes, this is true.

The other day someone asked me if I would run for mayor of this city.... NO!

How about we make you the honorary Prez of the forum since you speak with such knowledge and authority.  Hail to the Chief! 

So you think Newt is the best candidate?

I think Newt's running. I think it will come down to Newt v. Clinton.

If it does, I'd be more inclined to go Newt than Hillary.

I think Newt is the one to watch because Newt has a strategy and it's always worth watching the guy who has planned, to see where it went right and where it went wrong.

I think that watching Newt and watching the Republicans who now bash Newt will be interesting, because they will eventually turn into Newt supporters and it will be funny to watch them phumph all over theirselves as they try to justify it.

[quote=Whomitmayconcer]

I think that watching Newt and watching the Republicans who now bash Newt will be interesting, because they will eventually turn into Newt supporters and it will be funny to watch them phumph all over theirselves as they try to justify it.

[/quote]

You just don't get it, but you are fun to watch. Newt is a conservative, a neo-con (Senior Fellow at AEI), the kind of Southern pol who gets support from the likes of James Dobson. He's the anti-Christ to liberals and N.E. GOPers (his name only recently replaced in that role by Karl Rove). He has as much appeal with them as genital herpes. Every single poll shows that in spades.<?:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />

Conservatives "bash" him, while they agree with him on most every subject (you haven’t heard any conservative or Republican here “bash” him on issues), as a presidential candidate because his "I'd sooner have my sister work in a brothel than vote for" numbers are the only ones that rival Hillary's. He’s a completely unviable candidate in a general election, so he will not will the nomination. Period, full stop, end of story.

Now, should the Earth start rotating in the opposite direction, and by some freak happenstance Newt should face Hillary in the general election, I’d happily cast my vote for him, with no need to “phumph” or anything else.

[quote=jokeriswild]

Most of the military love President Bush.

[/quote]

You're right, they do. They're closest to the mission and they support it. Then again, they're not smart enough to know about their "best interests", just ask or resident expert, he'll tell you.

 I'd be more inclined to go Newt than Hillary

I'd be more inclined to vote for anyone than Hillary.

I'm about as likely to elected Queen of the World than Newt is to be the candidate for the Republican party.  Don't you remember, I said we want to win.

babbling looney - you’re not being fair.  Hillary deserves to be president - it’s her right.  She’s worked hard and has put up with a loser husband - soley for this job.  It’s not right for you to minimize this dream of hers.  It’s not about our country, or the people - it’s all about her.  Plus - she needs a new reason to go out and buy some new pant-suits.

"Yet as the numbers were tallied and Republicans found themselves staring at a $27 million gap, it was clear that the disparity between the two parties this spring was about more than money."

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/05/us/politics/05assess.html? hp

Gee, whom was it that said there were problems in the Republican fund raising efforts?

"Unlike the Democrats, the Republicans seem to want to annoint a candidate before they hit the primary scene. The problem with this is that there are too many Republicans that figure that running AGAINST the party has a better chance of being a successful strategy. Second problem being that it looks like a party in disarray and so political donations are going towards the winning party, and it looks more and moore like that's the case when the Republicans can't even get a candidate put together. (Again, I'm just talking about the politics of it, not the emotion.)" Gee, that sounds like something I would say!

 And which was it that pooh poohed that assertion as a misunderstanding of the process?

"I think you misunderstand how donations work. They go to the most likely winning candidate of the party the giver finds like-minded to their own philosophy. Edwards could look like a landslide favorite, he’s not getting the money of people who believe in business and capital."

Hmmmm! I wonder!

Whom wisely retorted thusly?

"You keep thinking that, if it helps you sleep at night. The philosophy of business is "don't let politics get in the way of making friends in high places."

Probably whom you thought it was.

Which one was it that vomiturated this gem?

"If you say so……in the mean time I’ll just keep track of things like contributions from places like the US Chamber of Commerce."

See? I only put words into the mouths they came out of. I don't feel any need to create strawmen.

It is a good thing to know the difference between data and determination. Some folks take what they don't know and try to find the foctoid that will disprove it. Others are more willing to weigh factors to arrive at a logical conclusion.

Yet another in a long stream of lengthy non-sequitars.

" He's the anti-Christ to liberals and N.E. GOPers (his name only recently replaced in that role by Karl Rove)."

I'm not sure where you are from (my impression based on your comments to me about not knowing the south is that you are a southerner) and so I can't be sure what you do and do not know about N.E. GOPers or Liberals in general or specific.

I will tell you that the other evening when I went to help the lady next door we sat down for a while and talked politics. This is a semi elderly black woman who lives alone and will call me to vent about what "they're doing now!". Point being she's a bona fide big D democrat! Without any prompting from me, she said "I like Newt! He's SMART! He uses his brain."

I don't disagree that Newt has an image problem. I never have disagreed with that. What I keep saying and the rightists on this thread keep ignoring is that Newt is no dummy, he knows he has the image problem and yet here he is, running (probably won't formally announce till Fall). Why don't you think he has plotted out a way to overcome his image problem?

Newt has been working on this for 10 years. Newt came out with the Ghetto talk line at a very opportune time. He's playing the media like a fine violin. It's captivating to watch. Newt is back on CNN, when was the last time you saw this guy anywhere (aside from the "I was having an affair at the time")? And now, here he is.

Joe Biden can't get arrested and here's Newt, not only making a "gaffe" but getting to explain and not get slammed like Biden did.

I really don't care if you like Newt or not, not watching him this election season is going to be like having front row seats at Ali Fraiser and watching the ref for the whole fight. 

<?:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /> 

Show of hands, everyone/anyone.  If you like, feel free to support your answers.

Who thinks;

1) The success in fund raising in the last quarter enjoyed by the Democrats is anything more than excitement about Obama coupled with the usual motivation felt by the party that’s been out of the Whitehouse for two terms?

2) That the success in fund raising last quarter enjoyed by Democrats means the GOP is at a material disadvantage in the general election to be held 19 months from now.

3) That the money advantage in fund raising right now has nothing to do with the Democrats getting an early, excited start, and everything to do with money flowing to the party not in “disarray” and looking like a prohibitive favorite to win in 2008.

4) That every poll showing Hillary and Obama losing to most every potential GOP nominee in a general election match up are all wrong, and shouldn’t be used to undermine the “money flowing to the winning party” theory expressed in #3.

5) That “Two Americas” Democrat John Edwards is going to be the campaign donation favorite of people who support capitalism?

6) That Newt appeals to liberals and disaffected N.E. “Rockefeller” GOP types or is anything other than the Southern conservative neo-con that he’s always been.

7) That the GOP “elites” can get the gullible rank and file to vote for anyone, issues and background be damned.

8) That the Democrats are different than suggested in #5.

9) That the GOP field of potential nominees will be “running against” the GOP.

10) If you answered “yes” to #9, who is doing that right now?

ZZZZZZZZ.....

<?:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /> 

[quote=Whomitmayconcer]

" He's the anti-Christ to liberals and N.E. GOPers (his name only recently replaced in that role by Karl Rove)."

I'm not sure where you are from ....

[/quote]

I can read polls. Show me one that contradicts what I've said...

[quote=Whomitmayconcer]

 What I keep saying and the rightists on this thread keep ignoring is that Newt is no dummy, he knows he has the image problem and yet here he is, running (probably won't formally announce till Fall). Why don't you think he has plotted out a way to overcome his image problem? [/quote]

Newt has a history involving an “image problem” and smart as he is, he’s never solved it;

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newt_Gingrich

Newt inflicted a temporary blow to his public image by seeming to suggest that the Republican hard-line stance over the budget was in part due to his feeling "snubbed" by the President the day before following his return from Yitzhak Rabin's funeral in <?:namespace prefix = st1 ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" />Israel. Gingrich was lampooned in the media as a petulant figure with an inflated self-image, and editorial cartoons depicted him as having thrown a temper tantrum. Democratic leaders took the opportunity to attack Gingrich's motives for the budget standoff, and some say the shutdown might have contributed to Clinton's re-election in November 1996.[21][22]

By 1998, Gingrich had become a highly visible and polarizing figure in the public's eye, making him an easy target for Democratic congressional candidates across the nation.[citation needed] In 1997 a strong majority of Americans believed Gingrich should have been replaced as Speaker of the House, and he held an all-time low job approval rating of 28%.[25] During this period, Gingrich was at the forefront of Republican calls for the investigation and impeachment of President Clinton for committing perjury by lying under oath during the Lewinsky scandal,[citation needed] and he focused on the perjury charges as a unifying campaign theme in national Republican advertising. Republicans did not focus on the tryst itself but rather the perjurious statements made by the President in connection with the incident. Democratic candidates in races across the country targeted Gingrich specifically during the campaign season.[citation needed]

He sometimes serves as a commentator, guest or panel member on television news shows, mostly on the Fox News Channel. He is listed as a contributor by Fox News Channel, and frequently appears as a guest on the channel; he has also hosted occasional specials for the Fox News Channel. (more liberal love to come with that tag)

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070405/ap_on_el_pr/gingrich2008 _1

Gingrich clarifies 'ghetto' word choice

By KASIE HUNT, Associated Press Writer 4 minutes ago

WASHINGTON - Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, who is mulling a presidential bid, said his "word choice was poor" when he equated bilingual education with "the language of living in a ghetto."

Yep, that’s going to endear him to Latino voters and liberals. It really demonstrates “change” on his part.

[quote=Whomitmayconcer]

I really don't care if you like Newt or not……

[/quote]

You’re still confused. I don’t dislike Newt, he simply stands zero chance of getting the nomination. Also, I simply don’t find your theory that he’s something different than he’s always been or that he has an appeal to liberals or N.E. GOPers convincing. In fact, other than you repeating it, you’ve offered no real evidence to support it.

"6) That Newt appeals to liberals and disaffected N.E. “Rockefeller” GOP types or is anything other than the Southern conservative neo-con that he’s always been."

The very fact that I AM the person you refer to here and that I DO find Newt appealing refutes your point.

"I really don't care if you like Newt or not……"

"You’re still confused. I don’t dislike Newt...."

Please, I'll say my words, you say your words. STOP putting words into other people's mouths! I'm NOT confused, I don't CARE if you like him or not!

I still find it amusing that you think you know more about politics than Newt Gingrich! You think you know what he's doing better than he does and you know more about what his strategies are than he does.

Meanwhile, all you've shown is that you know nothing, as evidenced by the line of  "non sequitars" in re: campaign fund raising.

Maybe what you ought to try to do, and I say this because it would be a good practice in this business as well, is to assume that the market is trying to tell you something, and then figure out what that is.

In this case, "the market" is Newt's candidacy. Maybe Newt isn't stupid, maybe Newt is smart. Maybe Newt knew that saying "Language of the ghetto" would get him coverage. Maybe he knew that this is an issue that, while dangerous, is one that most people agree upon.

Occasionally, I used to run into first generation Italian women who never learned to speak english. But their children did! And their husband did! And they spoke english in the house!

There's not a whole lot of people who are going to disagree, at a gut level with the idea that people ought to speak english. There ARE more people who could disagree with the idea of eliminating ESL programs in the schools, but few would be willing to make a huge deal of it. There is a predisposition among people to believe that if kids were forced to speak english, they would and ESL just coddles them.

Given this, Newt picked out a seemingly explosive but actually very safe position. He gets media coverage without any actual damage.

Assume he knows what he's doing. Maybe he doesn't, but that's not too likely.

Whom..yawn-yawn....itmayconcern - I think you deserve the big, 'zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz'

mikebutler222 - based on your 10 points, you must be a closet political analyst - great post!

This: "mikebutler222 - based on your 10 points, you must be a closet political analyst - great post!"

Is why

This: " Whom..yawn-yawn....itmayconcern - I think you deserve the big, 'zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz'"

Is of zero consequence.

[quote=Whomitmayconcer] <?:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />

"6) That Newt appeals to liberals and disaffected N.E. “Rockefeller” GOP types or is anything other than the Southern conservative neo-con that he’s always been."

The very fact that I AM the person you refer to here and that I DO find Newt appealing refutes your point. [/quote]

Note I used the plural version of the word “liberal”….

[quote=Whomitmayconcer]  

“I really don’t care if you like Newt or not……”

"You’re still confused. I don’t dislike Newt...."

Please, I'll say my words, you say your words. STOP putting words into other people's mouths! I'm NOT confused, I don't CARE if you like him or not! [/quote]

I didn’t come close to putting words in your mouth. You brought up the issue of me disliking Newt, so I responded to it. You made the same weird sort of argument about GOPer’s fulminating about Newt earlier.

[quote=Whomitmayconcer]

I still find it amusing that you think you know more about politics than Newt Gingrich![/quote]

That’s a funny way of trying to refute the evidence I’ve brought about Newt, his standings in the polls, his past missteps with the press and public.  

[quote=Whomitmayconcer]

Meanwhile, all you've shown is that you know nothing, as evidenced by the line of  "non sequitars" in re: campaign fund raising.

[/quote]

Well, I guess I’m just no match for the political strategy genius who sees Newt wowing liberals and disaffected N.E. GOPers….

[quote=Whomitmayconcer]

Maybe what you ought to try to do, and I say this because it would be a good practice in this business as well, is to assume that the market is trying to tell you something, and then figure out what that is.

In this case, "the market" is Newt's candidacy. [/quote]

Yep, and the best indicators of this market are the polls.  Just what do the polls say about Newt? How about Newt and liberals?

In this case, "the market" is Newt's candidacy.

Are you saying we should short Newt? or short the market?