Topic: We the people are DOOMED!

[MacWell™]

I read a lot of news sites and respond to many comments as well. All I can say from reading and blogging is that we are more willing to allow Obama to finish destroying what's left of America, than we are to stop the stupid infighting.

What the hell is wrong with us?

Have we lost our collective minds?

We have a chance to end this administration's destructive policies, but we'd rather argue about whether Gingrich is better than Romney, or Paul is the second coming.

As I see it, Newt is the only candidate willing to take on the onslaught that will be the Axelrod machine, and don't think for a second that Axelrod isn't overloading his cannons. As much of a scumbag as Axelrod is, Newt seems to be the only person with the stones to go against him and the Obama treasure chest.

While I think Romney is a nice man, he is too nice. He wont even get nasty against Newt. What do you think he's going to do when faced with the scourge of DC. Will he take the gloves off? I doubt it.

Unless we the people stop fighting each other and start to back Gingrich with our support, we are DOOMED. It's a sad time for America.

[Pandora]

Don't worry; when a candidate is nominated, even the nose-holders will help see to it that the Grift-Os are evicted.

[trapeze]

I understand your angst.

Personally, I am not enamored of any of the four remaining candidates. But, I will support whoever emerges from the pack. Right now the leader du jour is Gingrich. Next week it might be Santorum. Or (God forbid) Paul.

I wish that I could get excited about Gingrich. I can't. None of the current candidates excite me.

Whoever ends up as the nominee I will support. But I cannot get behind Newt or anyone else at this point.

It's in God's hands and I am content to leave it there for the time being.

[IronDioPriest]

I'm not fighting anybody, and I don't think our only hope lies in Gingrich. I think Gingrich presents a whole set of unique problems, and I have extreme trepidation about supporting him. My trepidation is as extreme as it would be supporting Romney, but for completely different reasons.

It's hard for me to demand that conservatives unite around any of these candidates for the sake of a unified front. I cannot blame anyone for feeling like none of them represents our best shot to beat Obama, let alone our best shot to save the nation once Obama is beat.

At this point, I'm resigned to vote for any of them, but I will do so out of disgust, disappointment, and disillusionment, just like I did in '08 when I voted for McCain.

[trapeze]

I will say this, though...

When you say, "What the hell is wrong with us?" I think that a better question is, "What is wrong with our party leadership?" Why do we allow our candidates to be played by the MFM? That debate last night was disgraceful. It made our candidates (all of them) look small and stupid. Now, granted, none of them are particularly great but they shouldn't be allowed to have their strings pulled by NBC News schmucks. Or CNN pukes. Or Dianne Sawyer and her dim witted sidekick George.

We should instead allow a network news organization to film a debate that we put on. They should be a disinterested spectator who just happens to have cameras and a satellite uplink rather than the perverse and biased hacks that they are. We should stop playing their game. This is not the 20th century. We are beyond broadcast news. We are beyond cable. We are capable of self broadcasting to the internet if nothing else is available. But instead we suck up to the Democrat Party hacks that run the MFM.

So again I ask..."What's wrong with our party leadership?"

[John Florida]

I will say this, though...

When you say, "What the hell is wrong with us?" I think that a better question is, "What is wrong with our party leadership?" Why do we allow our candidates to be played by the MFM? That debate last night was disgraceful. It made our candidates (all of them) look small and stupid. Now, granted, none of them are particularly great but they shouldn't be allowed to have their strings pulled by NBC News schmucks. Or CNN pukes. Or Dianne Sawyer and her dim witted sidekick George.

We should instead allow a network news organization to film a debate that we put on. They should be a disinterested spectator who just happens to have cameras and a satellite uplink rather than the perverse and biased hacks that they are. We should stop playing their game. This is not the 20th century. We are beyond broadcast news. We are beyond cable. We are capable of self broadcasting to the internet if nothing else is available. But instead we suck up to the Democrat Party hacks that run the MFM.

So again I ask..."What's wrong with our party leadership?"

 We the people is what's wrong with leadership!! We the people elected them.  I blame me first.

[Alphabet Soup]

If I could capture the attention of Newt and Mitt for half a minute I would chastise them both for taking their eye off the ball (Øbozo). Them sniping at one another isn't advancing the chances for either one, rather it is pissing off "the base".

It's the ØbaMessiah we need to bloody up (in the nicest possible way of course!).

[charlesoakwood]

Our party leadership is in it for themselves they do not care for you or I.
We are on our own. 

We have been deserted by party leadership and most of our representatives.
I moved to Newt because the other two are party men. Their records speak
for themselves.  You say the gNewt is a party man too.  Well, yes he is.
He also is a gunslinger who is not afraid to fight and he's looking to square
some deals.  I think the people he is gunning for are those we would rather
see gone.

This may be our last election and I'll not vote for some repetition of this
perversity they have foisted upon me.  This is it, Newt is the only candidate
that knows what we want and is promising to fight and deliver.  If he fails he
will be no worse than either of the other two.  Go Newt,  Go Newt.

[trapeze]

Here's an article which might be of interest regarding Gingrich's chances...

The problem with Romney, it seems to me, is that not only is he the wrong man in the wrong place at the wrong time, politically ill-wind speaking, he has no natural constituency — and that’s what’s keeping him mired in the mid-twenties while the not-Romneys (including the outlier, Ron Paul) scoop up the rest.

Just before the New Hampshire primary, some idiot tweeted, “If Romney is held below 40 percent, he’s toast; if below 30 percent, he’s meat.” As it turned out, he got 39.4 percent — lightly buttered toast. Because if quasi-favorite-son Mitt couldn’t convincingly sweep away the riff-raff in his own back yard, it bode poorly for South Carolina. (By contrast, Gingrich got 40.45 percent of the vote in S.C., and he was still splitting the anti-Mitt vote with Paul and Santorum.)

...

So if Gingrich wins the nomination, can he beat Obama? The smart money says no, but you’d expect a poll-obsessed, racing-form consulting collection of media eunuchs to say that. (Heads have been rotating on MSNBC the past 48 hours as the metrosexual chatterers try to unearth the secret of Gingrich’s belligerent appeal, unable to wrap their minds around the fact that it’s the very belligerence that’s the appeal.)

The dumb money, however, says . . . maybe. In a fight between a puncher and boxer, between Grant and Lee, the boxer may sing and dance for round after round, but if the puncher ever catches up to him, it’s lights out. Gingrich’s genius in going after the media is that he knows they are Obama’s Praetorian Guard and shock troops rolled into one. If he can take them out — by making them look as ridiculous as they really are and thus stripping them of their pompous, bogus “morality” — he can sweep up the midwest, roll up the South, and very likely force the surrender in the same place Grant cornered Lee: the swing state of Virginia.

[Predator Don]

Our party leadership is in it for themselves they do not care for you or I.
We are on our own. 

We have been deserted by party leadership and most of our representatives.
I moved to Newt because the other two are party men. Their records speak
for themselves.  You say the gNewt is a party man too.  Well, yes he is.
He also is a gunslinger who is not afraid to fight and he's looking to square
some deals.  I think the people he is gunning for are those we would rather
see gone.

This may be our last election and I'll not vote for some repetition of this
perversity they have foisted upon me.  This is it, Newt is the only candidate
that knows what we want and is promising to fight and deliver.  If he fails he
will be no worse than either of the other two.  Go Newt,  Go Newt.

Newts popularity is born of the people's understanding our leaders have left us on our own. Time and time again, leaders like JB have let us down, while more conservative politicians are allowed to be sullied, by literally, everyone.

I'll support newt because the others will choose leaders who will be spineless. Company men. I believe newt will choose leadership to assist America. It will stroke his ego, sure, and he'll say ( and probably do) some things that will make me cringe, but if he pushes ideas like the contract with America, I'll shoulder his nuances for the good of the country.

IMO, he is the only choice to change direction. I don't see the others with the cojones.

[trapeze]

Sadly, as much as I like Rick Santorum...I think he is a decent man with mostly conservative principles...I don't think that he will be able to compete much longer.

Herr Doktor Ron Paul is certifiably insane on all subjects outside of monetary and fiscal matters. Besides...does anyone think he will get more than, say, 50 delegates ever? I don't. I'll be surprised if he gets more than 20.

Romney is unacceptable on several different levels:

A) He isn't a conservative. I don't care what he says. The very fact that he was able to garner a majority of votes for any office in Massachusetts is all the proof anyone needs that he isn't a conservative and never has been.

B) He apparently has no core principles. As a lib governor of a lib state he held lib principles but he had no problems tossing them overboard in his pursuit of the Republican nomination. I have zero confidence in him adhering to his newly found ideals.

C) He created RomneyCare. And he's proud of that fact. I have no desire to experience whatever new big ideas might pop into his head as president.

The article that I linked to above outlines other issues with Romney such as how much he sucks at campaigning but the fact remains that, for me, he isn't acceptable on just about any level I care to think of.

I could list Gingrich's faults and issues but I won't bother. His problems are as numerous as Romney's...just different.

The Limbaugh Rule* would dictate supporting Santorum but I have to, at this point, go with the Buckley Rule which as most of us know is to support the most conservative candidate who can win. At this point, the candidate which seems to me to fit that bill is Gingrich.

So I'm screwed. I like Santorum and I believe he is the most conservative of the group but I don't see him going anywhere. I don't like Romney because I don't think that he even is a conservative. That goes double for Paul...he is a Libertarian masquerading as a Republican. That leaves Gingrich as the most conservative who is viable. Ugh.

*Support the most conservative candidate in the primaries.

[Sectionhand]

If we look at this as a "Vote Stymie Out" election then we might succeed . But it certainly would be easier with a "Reagan" to rally around ... there just isn't one right now who's willing to run through this political pig-pen .

[BigAlSouth]

Sadly, as much as I like Rick Santorum...I think he is a decent man with mostly conservative principles...I don't think that he will be able to compete much longer.

Herr Doktor Ron Paul is certifiably insane on all subjects outside of monetary and fiscal matters. Besides...does anyone think he will get more than, say, 50 delegates ever? I don't. I'll be surprised if he gets more than 20.

Romney is unacceptable on several different levels:

A) He isn't a conservative. I don't care what he says. The very fact that he was able to garner a majority of votes for any office in Massachusetts is all the proof anyone needs that he isn't a conservative and never has been.

B) He apparently has no core principles. As a lib governor of a lib state he held lib principles but he had no problems tossing them overboard in his pursuit of the Republican nomination. I have zero confidence in him adhering to his newly found ideals.

C) He created RomneyCare. And he's proud of that fact. I have no desire to experience whatever new big ideas might pop into his head as president.

. . .

I agree.

The Republican Primary boils down to two flawed candidates: Romney and Gingrich. For me, the question is whether either of which is fatally flawed. Based on Romney's lack of core principles, the creation of State Health Care in Mass and he desire to "reach across the aisle" I must conclude that his flaws are fatal.

If my candidate wants to reach across the aisle, it better be to bitch slap those stupid Marxists Statists who are ruining the country.

[MacWell™]

All well and good. My friends here seem to think with their brains instead of their hearts, that assures me that I'm not alone. I thank you for responding.

All that is said here brings me to my biggest gripe, the career politician. OUR Congress has been usurped by a bunch of lawyers who's only goal is to be reelected, year after year so they can keep their hungry mouths in the pie. They are the reason that Obama was elected in the first place. They are the reason America is at a point that we may not survive. They are the reason that with all the money we send to DC, it's never enough, until they get their fair share of that pie.

We the people have allowed them to run roughshod over trillions of our dollars to those who help them get reelected again and again. We must rid America of all career politicians. Remember this, Congress was NEVER meant to be a career, and it surely wasn't meant to be overrun with lawyers. Ask yourself this, the founders laid out the best method of governance, representation for all Americans, not just lawyers. These great men left us with the proper way of staffing Congress, a mix of all walks of life. Bankers, farmers, blacksmiths, shopkeepers, etc. etc. We need to elect people who DON'T have little letters after their names, plumbers, bricklayers, librarians, letter carriers, school teachers, accountants, etc. etc. Then, and only then, will we truly have a cross section of all Americans, then, we will have a Congress that can support the wisdom of our founders.

[IronDioPriest]

I agree Mac. I think term limits has as many down sides as upsides though. I'd rather limit career politicians by creating a self-limiting environment. Perry was onto something when he proposed a part time legislature. I don't know if that's the answer, but something like that. Something that would make the idea of a career in politics unattractive and/or untenable.

No benefits after retirement. Low salary. No perks. Part time. Performance pay based on constituent review. Just peeling ideas off the top of my head.

[ToddF]

Gingrich has one last change to get me back on board.  He has to defend himself vigorously against the California Hag.  That means filing blackmail charges.  If he doesn't, that would mean to me he isn't serious about taking on the trash that is today's Democrat Party.

[Libertas]

"So I'm screwed. I like Santorum and I believe he is the most conservative of the group but I don't see him going anywhere. I don't like Romney because I don't think that he even is a conservative. That goes double for Paul...he is a Libertarian masquerading as a Republican. That leaves Gingrich as the most conservative who is viable. Ugh."

That's it in a nutshell, Trap.  Oh and Newt does fight, might not always agree with why or how, but he fights.  Not sure if he'll go hard after Pelosi like MNHawk wants, I hope so, but at least having her as a punching bag could be good.

[trapeze]

Gingrich has one last change to get me back on board.  He has to defend himself vigorously against the California Hag.  That means filing blackmail charges.  If he doesn't, that would mean to me he isn't serious about taking on the trash that is today's Democrat Party.

She probably hasn't crossed the line to outright criminal blackmail yet. She probably won't.

If anything comes out (and it probably will) it will come out in October. It always does. She will be miles away when it happens and no one will be able to tie her to it.

Evil does not automatically equal stupid.

[ToddF]

In common usage, blackmail is a crime involving threats to reveal substantially true or false information about a person to the public, a family member, or associates unless a demand is met.

If you go on to win the nomination, I will release information to the public that will harm you.  That is blackmail.

[Libertas]

In common usage, blackmail is a crime involving threats to reveal substantially true or false information about a person to the public, a family member, or associates unless a demand is met.

If you go on to win the nomination, I will release information to the public that will harm you.  That is blackmail.

Which differs from extortion, which is iften confused with blackmial, but value involved (money) makes it extortion.  I would agree this fiots the definition of blackmail.

I would think since this involves a Federal officeholder, Newt shouild be able to refer this to the FBI and a Federal prosecutor, yes?