Polls really mean nothing, when they are that close, added to this I really have a hard time thinking that Gingrich could be elected. He just has too much history and much of it is negative, he'd possibly do OK running with someone as a vice president but no way could he actually win the election at this point.

Neut would be a strong choice for a VP position I can give that much to him but his past is far to shaky for the top spot. The problem with that is there isn't any of the other candidates that would have a good chance in winning either.

I see both Romney & Neut as VP material but there isn't anyone in the bunch that I really think could beat Obama assuming he doesn't totally throw it away somehow.

I suggest you re-read the thread title and then let the adults have a conversation. you might learn something.

Huntsman and or Bloomberg would have my vote.
The rest would be no better than Obama. If Hillary becomes a candidate she becomes very tough to beat in 2016 as well. This is the election cycle where the GOP needs to win or they will likely be locked out for a decade...

how is newt more like obama than huntsman or bloomberg?

Because Neut is of the Regan/Bush era.. they aren't conservative Republicans in the small govt less taxes sense but Right Wing do boys for the neo cons. It doesn't mean the guy isn't smart, but he is in the same boat as Regan & the Bushes whom practically ruined this country.

I'm guessing you're too young to remember Reagan.
I'm also guessing you're too young to remember the contract with America

His contract meant nothing because it wasn't kept.

Regan was the first to turn into a social conservative while spending us into oblivion. Meaning he was of the new era of Republican that feels it's OK for the Govt to tell adults what they can and can't do, but are OK with irresponsible; govt spending as long as it's a corporation getting the funds and not some average Joe.

For some reason you Right Wingers see Regan as a hero, yet he was the beginning of the end of "true" conservative Republicans and the start of what is wrong with this country today.

spending is in the hands of the house, not the president.
Reagan tried to force cuts in spending by starving the beast. Because the house was democratically controlled, it didn't work.
When Newt controlled the house, spending was cut.
I understand that not being old enough to remember it first hand means you have to hear it second hand so it makes sense that you believe what you believe.
The facts, however, are much different.

and budgets are introduced by Presidents.

One of the things I will never understand about Republicans (con-servatives) is their lack of historical knowledge and their incessant need to either ignore facts AND history or to take facts and history and revise them to fit their narrative...

Here is a perfect example... (I will find some on Newt later)

Con-servatives like to say that Bush didn't cause the financial crisis and blame Barney Frank and Fannie and Freddie... that claim is revisionist... here is proof:

Humm and all this time I thought the President sent congress a Budget request and they argued within Congress for some time and finally the President signs it into law if he approves it. I guess Regan was absent when it came time to submit a request and sign for it? Odd I guess he was around enough to claim victory of the cold war though..

not sure how an affordable housing tax credit caused the damage that barney frank, freddie and fannie caused but I guess when you're a liberal, you'll grasp at any straw.

We all know Cain is history. No one will vote for a man that obviously doesn't even bother to read a fucking newspaper. Or will they?

As far as Newt

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-1...eddie-mac.html

You didn't watch the video... that much is obvious by your reply

and then they are amended, earmarked, etc.
Reagan did not have the line item veto.

sorry son, I did.

"""Gingrich?s business relationship with Freddie Mac spanned a period of eight years. When asked at the debate what he did to earn a $300,000 payment in 2006, the former speaker said he ?offered them advice on precisely what they didn?t do,? and warned the company that its lending practices were ?insane.?""""

As suspected... you eat the talking point and ignore the substance...

Bachmann has some interesting Gingrich clips in here...

talking point.......hmmmmm.
like this?

"""The six items included a pledge to periodically issue subordinated debt, manage liquidity, undergo capital stress tests and expand various types of risk disclosures. Gingrich applauded the ideas, saying they would enable Freddie Mac to demonstrate benefits to the taxpayer, the person said."""



anyway, talking to a flaming liberal about the republican primary is a waste of time as they see anyone in favor of fiscal responsibility and paying your own way as the enemy.

lol which Republican candidate is in favor of fiscal responsibility.. Come on 12clicks you really can't be this naive to still believe the same old BS that Republicans have been spewing out for the last 20 some odd years yet never manage to actually do it.

The only one even close is Ron Paul and he's looney as hell in regards to half the shit he says.

Republicans are no different than Democrats when it come to spending. The "only" difference is who gets the money. Fiscal responsibility to the current right wing means cutting welfare to the poor while doubling corporate welfare.

At least with the Democrats the people actually paying the taxes get something back instead of it just going to corporate America.

Newt's chance of becoming POTUS = ZERO

There is NO chance on earth that Newt will become the GOP frontrunner against Obama... absolutely NONE!

Obama supporters would love this match up, but it will never happen.

:1orglaugh

QFT! :2 cents::thumbsup

See... this is where you lose the argument. Democrats ARE for fiscal responsibility... that is why they opposed the Bush Tax Cuts that led to record deficits. You can call Democrats "tax and spend" all you like but the facts say that Republicans are the biggest spenders by far. You don't have to take my word for it... take any number of Republicans who will say the same exact thing about the party... including the last two chairmen.

In my view, they are all guilty of wrongdoing... but, stacked side to side, The Republican share outweighs the Democrat share 2 to 1. Not to mention the fact that the Republican way to gain support for their cause is through lies and propaganda.

I didn't say newt is more like Obama (he is less like Obama), but he would be the same or worse than Obama in providing a positive impact on the country. The country needs a visionary capable of moving a large group of people in the same direction... not 50.01% of the people.... 80%+ of the people. Newt is divisive at best and a self-serving asshole when at his worst.

Bloomberg is the answer... unfortunately he appears to be too smart to run.:2 cents:

You know who had that kind of support? FDR when he raised taxes to 90%+ on the wealthy.

That's half true. He had that kind of support when he raised taxes coming out of a massive depression and world war. We no longer have massive depressions and world wars. Now we have lengthy recessions that pinch people just enough to harm them but not enough to make them revolt... and we have combat actions that are prolonged but use poor people and expensive weapons to reduce the visible impact they have on the middle class and the wealthy.

The wealthy are insulated from any harm AS LONG AS they make sure the poor and middle class are doing 'well enough' to prevent a revolt. It's when the greed becomes too rampant that the masses finally become motivated enough to get off their asses and do something. I don't see things getting 'bad enough' to turn that way, but the wealthy would be better off if they avoided getting as close to the line as they have in recent years.

Mass Poverty is always much worse for the rich than it is for the poor, the rich have much more to lose and mass poverty is what causes the poor to do something. As the saying goes, 'fat men won't fight' - and the rich benefit tremendously from keeping everyone fat enough to avoid getting off their couch and into the streets. :2 cents:

cause many Republicans are close minded bigots and can't get past Romney being a Morman :2 cents:

Why is this petition only a quarter of a million strong?

It should be 300 million strong!

http://www.getmoneyout.com/

untrue.

also, lets pick 1944 as an example. the top tax bracket kicked in at $2.549 million.
that would be slightly over $32 million in todays dollars. a far cry from the $250k obama would like the top bracket to start at.

a country is ruled most poorly when ruled by its rabble.

Newt doesn't stand a chance, the reason he is gaining in the polls is because no one likes romney and its Newt's turn to get his one on one chance with Mitt. As soon as Mitt brings up that Newt divorced his wife who was dying of cancer, game over Newt