Gingrich

[Embar Angylwrath]

You think Newt is a loon, but have claimed in the past you'd vote for Ron Paul? Somehow Paul is not a loon?

No, I don't think Paul is a loon. I wasn't really too worried about some of his "out there" visions, like returning to the gold standard, because for much of his agenda, he needs a willing Congress. I think he's exactly the pivot point the Congress could use to get shit done. If he's the odd man out, and it isn't about party idealogy against party idealogoy, then he can play the foil, and allow Congress to blame him while they pass bi-partisan bills. A veto from a Libertarian can be spun so that neiher established party has to take the blame.

Newt can't do that. Even Romney can't do that, although I think Romney will govern more from the middle.

BTW... Romney labelling Gingrich as an "influence peddler" in the debate was classic. That one is going to stick and its going to sting Gingrich for a while.

[Harlowe]

Sure, Huntsman believed in science and evolution...

That's precisely why he was the best candidate from that group, not a great candidate in general. =)

[Kulaf]

You think Newt is a loon, but have claimed in the past you'd vote for Ron Paul? Somehow Paul is not a loon?

No, I don't think Paul is a loon. I wasn't really too worried about some of his "out there" visions, like returning to the gold standard, because for much of his agenda, he needs a willing Congress. I think he's exactly the pivot point the Congress could use to get shit done. If he's the odd man out, and it isn't about party idealogy against party idealogoy, then he can play the foil, and allow Congress to blame him while they pass bi-partisan bills. A veto from a Libertarian can be spun so that neiher established party has to take the blame.

Newt can't do that. Even Romney can't do that, although I think Romney will govern more from the middle.

BTW... Romney labelling Gingrich as an "influence peddler" in the debate was classic. That one is going to stick and its going to sting Gingrich for a while.

What exactly are they going to "get done" that Paul wouldn't veto?

[Embar Angylwrath]

You think Newt is a loon, but have claimed in the past you'd vote for Ron Paul? Somehow Paul is not a loon?

No, I don't think Paul is a loon. I wasn't really too worried about some of his "out there" visions, like returning to the gold standard, because for much of his agenda, he needs a willing Congress. I think he's exactly the pivot point the Congress could use to get shit done. If he's the odd man out, and it isn't about party idealogy against party idealogoy, then he can play the foil, and allow Congress to blame him while they pass bi-partisan bills. A veto from a Libertarian can be spun so that neiher established party has to take the blame.

Newt can't do that. Even Romney can't do that, although I think Romney will govern more from the middle.

BTW... Romney labelling Gingrich as an "influence peddler" in the debate was classic. That one is going to stick and its going to sting Gingrich for a while.

What exactly are they going to "get done" that Paul wouldn't veto?

What exactly won't they get done is a better question.

[Lurker]

Could you be any more vacuous?

[Partha]

Yeah, let's get real here.

When they're all alone in the booth at the end of it all, IF Gingrich is the nominee, Embar will vote for him because he's NotObama and will let Grover Norquist save his taxation monies. Kulaf will vote for him because he promises lots of dead Ay-Rabs in his foreign policy, and Fallakin will vote for him because he's batshit crazy like his bestest bud Glenn Beck.

[Fallakin Kuvari]

Yeah, let's get real here.

When they're all alone in the booth at the end of it all, IF Gingrich is the nominee, Embar will vote for him because he's NotObama and will let Grover Norquist save his taxation monies. Kulaf will vote for him because he promises lots of dead Ay-Rabs in his foreign policy, and Fallakin will vote for him because he's batshit crazy like his bestest bud Glenn Beck.

You know what they say about assuming things.

[Partha]

Yeah, let's get real here.

When they're all alone in the booth at the end of it all, IF Gingrich is the nominee, Embar will vote for him because he's NotObama and will let Grover Norquist save his taxation monies. Kulaf will vote for him because he promises lots of dead Ay-Rabs in his foreign policy, and Fallakin will vote for him because he's batshit crazy like his bestest bud Glenn Beck.

You know what they say about assuming things.

Yes, but we've already established that we're both asses.

[Kulaf]

Yeah, let's get real here.

When they're all alone in the booth at the end of it all, IF Gingrich is the nominee, Embar will vote for him because he's NotObama and will let Grover Norquist save his taxation monies. Kulaf will vote for him because he promises lots of dead Ay-Rabs in his foreign policy, and Fallakin will vote for him because he's batshit crazy like his bestest bud Glenn Beck.

You seriously just cannot wrap your head around the fact that I have in fact voted for Democrats in the past, and will vote for more of them in the future.

It's more sad to me that you are so firmly entrenched in party ideology that regardless of the circumstance you will always vote party line Democrat.

[Embar Angylwrath]

Could you be any more vacuous?

Sure, I can dumb it down for you if you want.

Seriously though... the Congress woulld have little choice but to put stuff in front of him he will sign. I would bet both sides would be able to find common ground in enough areas to get some legislation passed. A lot of the politcal risk is taken away from that process if they get to point at Paul when he does veto a bill.

[Lurker]

Ok, you can get more vacuous.

The idea that Republicans would start supporting sensible legislation just because Ron Paul is in the White House is absurd.

There's no clearer example of how ridiculous the idea is than the lockstep Republican obstruction of Obama's jobs agenda. Obama's proposals enjoyed the support of the vast majority of Americans, including a plurality of self-identified Republicans, and he still couldn't get a single Republican in Washington to vote yes. What was the political risk in supporting that legislation?

Answer Kulaf's question. What exactly are they going to "get done" that Paul wouldn't veto? What "stuff" do you think they would put in front of Ron Paul that would be agreeable to the American people, that would actually work as advertised, and that could garner support from the Democrats?

[Partha]

Yeah, let's get real here.

When they're all alone in the booth at the end of it all, IF Gingrich is the nominee, Embar will vote for him because he's NotObama and will let Grover Norquist save his taxation monies. Kulaf will vote for him because he promises lots of dead Ay-Rabs in his foreign policy, and Fallakin will vote for him because he's batshit crazy like his bestest bud Glenn Beck.

You seriously just cannot wrap your head around the fact that I have in fact voted for Democrats in the past, and will vote for more of them in the future.

It's more sad to me that you are so firmly entrenched in party ideology that regardless of the circumstance you will always vote party line Democrat.

At the current time, voting for Republicans gets you...Republican policies which are uniformly dangerous for folks like me and many of my relatives. Therefore, I don't do it. Kinda like not sticking your fork in the light socket.

And as far as the voting record goes, I still get plenty of R's asking me to donate money. Comes from voting for folks like George Ryan. I just don't believe you split tickets or ever would, based on your posting history here.

[Embar Angylwrath]

Ok, you can get more vacuous.

The idea that Republicans would start supporting sensible legislation just because Ron Paul is in the White House is absurd.

There's no clearer example of how ridiculous the idea is than the lockstep Republican obstruction of Obama's jobs agenda. Obama's proposals enjoyed the support of the vast majority of Americans, including a plurality of self-identified Republicans, and he still couldn't get a single Republican in Washington to vote yes. What was the political risk in supporting that legislation?

Answer Kulaf's question. What exactly are they going to "get done" that Paul wouldn't veto? What "stuff" do you think they would put in front of Ron Paul that would be agreeable to the American people, that would actually work as advertised, and that could garner support from the Democrats?

I think you must have bromance on me dude. Almost every post of yours starts with or contains a personal insult.

Anyway, rising above the 5th grade sandbox, I think sensible budget reform and tax code reform (both of which each party supports and Paul supports) would stand a decent chance of getting signed if Paul were President. and if that's the only two domestic issues he did in his firs term, I'd be ecstatic.

Republicans were a cohesive bunch, and they acted the way they did, in no small part, for political reasons. They sensed vulnerability in Obama, and they went after it. No different in what Dems do, opnly the Reps are far better at it. Removing the party vs party positioning would allow congress a greater freedom.

And funny that in your world its always the Reps fault.

[Lurker]

I think sensible budget reform and tax code reform (both of which each party supports and Paul supports) would stand a decent chance of getting signed if Paul were President.

And funny that in your world its always the Reps fault.

Well, for decades now it has been primarily the Republicans fault. What's funny is when you attack Obama for things that are clearly the Republicans fault (here's one example) and hold Republicans entirely blameless. Republicans are primarily at fault for our current debt problems, for the downgrading of our credit rating, and for slowing down our economic recovery through a strategy of deliberate sabotage and obstruction. No honest observer could conclude differently.

But anyways... can you point us to sensible budget reform or tax code reform offered by the Republican Party? They've been great at proposing radical changes to tax code that a) explode the deficit and/or b) shift burden from the wealthy to the poor and middle class (worsening an already critical problem), but I haven't seen any sensible suggestions for many years. Their budget policies and tax reform suggestions and health care proposals score horribly with impartial agencies because the Republican Party is filled with know-nothings who believe their own propaganda. They are full of suggestions we know don't work as advertised. That's just a fact. But maybe you can highlight some sensible policies for us.

[Kulaf]

Yeah, let's get real here.

When they're all alone in the booth at the end of it all, IF Gingrich is the nominee, Embar will vote for him because he's NotObama and will let Grover Norquist save his taxation monies. Kulaf will vote for him because he promises lots of dead Ay-Rabs in his foreign policy, and Fallakin will vote for him because he's batshit crazy like his bestest bud Glenn Beck.

You seriously just cannot wrap your head around the fact that I have in fact voted for Democrats in the past, and will vote for more of them in the future.

It's more sad to me that you are so firmly entrenched in party ideology that regardless of the circumstance you will always vote party line Democrat.

At the current time, voting for Republicans gets you...Republican policies which are uniformly dangerous for folks like me and many of my relatives. Therefore, I don't do it. Kinda like not sticking your fork in the light socket.

And as far as the voting record goes, I still get plenty of R's asking me to donate money. Comes from voting for folks like George Ryan. I just don't believe you split tickets or ever would, based on your posting history here.

Well like I have said in the past, I tend to vote for Democrats at the local and state level, and tend to vote for Republicans at the Federal level. There are of course always exceptions based on what is going on at both levels. So since we rarely discuss state politics, you don't see me post about local/state Democratic candidates.

[Harlowe]

I think you must have bromance on me dude. Almost every post of yours starts with or contains a personal insult.

This has been going on between the two of you for years, just like you bringing up Lurker's deep feelings for you.

[Ddrak]

Oh look - Gingrich wants to stop infertile couples having children via IVF (and yes, that's the end result of his comments):

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/ ... CH_EMBRYOS

Dd

[Kulaf]

I didn't get that from the article. I think he is more concerned with what happens with the excess embyros. Nothing new for Republican candidates.

[Harlowe]

I'm actually surprised more Republicans haven't gone after fertility clinics.

[Partha]

I'm not. They're not concerned with the 'kids' - they're concerned the wimmins is having sex. Since the ones going to IVF clinics are obviously all married and denied God's birthright of lots of kids, it's ok if a few thousand embryos every year get dumped. Let it be a single woman who enjoys sex, though, and Katie bar the fucking door.