Cain is driving them nuts!

[GarMan]

I have selective memory and the ability to completely miss a point.

FTFY... 

Regarding Clinton, you kidz didn't get it then, and you still don't get it.  You're trying to equate the two situations when they are completely different.  That's a common problem with your generation.  Weak...  Shallow...  Sad... 

[GH2001]

Hate to declare this as my personal opinion, but....

Cain is most likely done.

I don't believe the accusations but the damage that was intended was done and can't be undone. Congrats Karl Rove, you did it. You eliminated someone you had a personal and political vendetta against. Hope you are happy you Bush loving fat piece of shit.

Now, I want to see Rove try the same thing with Newt. I don't think it will end the same if he does.

[GarMan]

Hate to declare this as my personal opinion, but....

Cain is most likely done.

I don't believe the accusations but the damage that was intended was done and can't be undone. Congrats Karl Rove, you did it. You eliminated someone you had a personal and political vendetta against. Hope you are happy you Bush loving fat piece of shit.

Now, I want to see Rove try the same thing with Newt. I don't think it will end the same if he does.

Yeah...  I know.  I cannot believe the extent of all of this BS.  Newt worries me.  I'm certain that he would destroy Barry, but I don't know if he can be trusted to be a true Conservative. 

[Kaos]

Yeah...  I know.  I cannot believe the extent of all of this BS.  Newt worries me.  I'm certain that he would destroy Barry, but I don't know if he can be trusted to be a true Conservative.

Obama will mop the floor with Newt on voting day.  The man has no chance in hell. 

[AUChizad]

Obama will mop the floor with Newt on voting day.  The man has no chance in hell.

Agree. Newt is eloquent and will fare well in the debates, but in the end his likeability will lose the general election.

And Republicans have given up on Cain, mainly because of these sex scandals, but then gravitate to Newt Gingrich? Who we know had at least two affairs, with would become his second and third wives. The first of which he brought divorce papers to her hospital bed while she was battling cancer.

Jon. Huntsman.

[GH2001]

Agree. Newt is eloquent and will fare well in the debates, but in the end his likeability will lose the general election.

And Republicans have given up on Cain, mainly because of these sex scandals, but then gravitate to Newt Gingrich? Who we know had at least two affairs, with would become his second and third wives. The first of which he brought divorce papers to her hospital bed while she was battling cancer.

Jon. Huntsman.

1. Your last point is actually an urban legend. The real story has been cleared up and told. Its one of those that changed a little every time it changed hands. By the time the media got it, it was so far removed from what really happened. I believed it too until I heard otherwise.

2. I actually like Huntsman. He is smart like Gingrich and polished like Romney. If Cain is done and Gingrich falls through, I hope Huntsman can surge. He is in the my top 3 personally. I used to like Paul more, but his foreign policy statements are just too far out there and false for my blood.

[GH2001]

Obama will mop the floor with Newt on voting day.  The man has no chance in hell.

Possible. Very possible.

But will Newt have inflicted more damage on Obama leading up to election day than Obama can overcome? That's gonna be the key. He has already challenged him to 7 Lincoln/Douglas style debates. 3 hours each, no moderator. He claims that if Obama turns down the offer, he will follow him around like Lincoln did Douglas. Not sure how serious he is, but strategically he puts Obama in a lose-lose with this.

[AUChizad]

I actually like Huntsman. He is smart like Gingrich and polished like Romney. If Cain is done and Gingrich falls through, I hope Huntsman can surge. He is in the my top 3 personally. I used to like Paul more, but his foreign policy statements are just too far out there and false for my blood.

I'm baffled why he is getting little to no support.

He's the most conservative of the bunch, fiscally. He's pro-life as well. He's eloquent, intelligent, and a likeable personality.

Originally I was 1) Paul, 2) Gary Johnson, 3) Jon Huntsman, but I too have begun to realize Paul is a bit too far out there on some things. Johnson is less so, but still a bit extreme, and I guess as a result of that was never considered a serious candidate. Never invited to the debates.

Anyway, if Jon Huntsman is elected, I, an independent voter, will vote for him over Obama. If it's Cain, Perry, or Bachmann (and hypothetically Palin), I'm voting for Obama. Pretty indifferent about Romney or Gingrich, but would slightly lean to them. Completely indifferent to the rest.

[GH2001]

I'm baffled why he is getting little to no support.

He's the most conservative of the bunch, fiscally. He's pro-life as well. He's eloquent, intelligent, and a likeable personality.

Originally I was 1) Paul, 2) Gary Johnson, 3) Jon Huntsman, but I too have begun to realize Paul is a bit too far out there on some things. Johnson is less so, but still a bit extreme, and I guess as a result of that was never considered a serious candidate. Never invited to the debates.

Anyway, if Jon Huntsman is elected, I, an independent voter, will vote for him over Obama. If it's Cain, Perry, or Bachmann (and hypothetically Palin), I'm voting for Obama. Pretty indifferent about Romney or Gingrich, but would slightly lean to them. Completely indifferent to the rest.

Johnson has a nice wit to his responses and I like him for the most part but he kind of lost me at "I don't believe in tariffs at all and never will". Very absurd statement.

Until Ron Paul stops sounding like an Alex Jones, tin foil hat wearing conspiracy theorist - he will never garner more than 10-15% in any election. His foreign poilicy is shit.

[AUTiger1]

Obama will mop the floor with Newt on voting day.  The man has no chance in hell.

I think so too, but if we are still in the shitty shape on election day that we are in now, I think the GOP can run another Bush and he would beat Obama.

Johnson has a nice wit to his responses and I like him for the most part but he kind of lost me at "I don't believe in tariffs at all and never will". Very absurd statement.

Until Ron Paul stops sounding like an Alex Jones, tin foil hat wearing conspiracy theorist - he will never garner more than 10-15% in any election. His foreign poilicy is shit.

Actually I would say that his foreign policy is ideal, but the world is not ideal.   If it was, I would have no issues telling the rest of the world to fuck off, pull all troops home and close up our borders, but we all know that isn't possible, I think Ron Paul is the only one that doesn't.   Well him and his 15% supporters. 

[AUTailgatingRules]

I'm baffled why he is getting little to no support.

He's the most conservative of the bunch, fiscally. He's pro-life as well. He's eloquent, intelligent, and a likeable personality.

Originally I was 1) Paul, 2) Gary Johnson, 3) Jon Huntsman, but I too have begun to realize Paul is a bit too far out there on some things. Johnson is less so, but still a bit extreme, and I guess as a result of that was never considered a serious candidate. Never invited to the debates.

Anyway, if Jon Huntsman is elected, I, an independent voter, will vote for him over Obama. If it's Cain, Perry, or Bachmann (and hypothetically Palin), I'm voting for Obama. Pretty indifferent about Romney or Gingrich, but would slightly lean to them. Completely indifferent to the rest.

I would vote for a steaming pile of dog shit before I would ever vote for Obama.  Just saying

[GH2001]

I would vote for a steaming pile of dog shit before I would ever vote for Obama.  Just saying

With that said, I would vote for ANYONE - even Rick Perry - before I would Obama. I would vote for Hillary over Obama. Anyone right now is more QUALIFIED than him. To be cliche, we cannot afford 4 more years. Perry and Romney are the Bush choice for us this time. Not ideal, but would still be better than Obama. His entire body of work just sucks giraffe bollucks.

[AUTiger1]

Perry and Romney are the Bush choice for us this time.

I still fear this is going to be 2004 in reverse.   The GOP can run a number of candidates and should stomp Obama, but they are going to run a Kerry/Edwards style ticket and probably hand Obama the keys to the White House for another four years.

This field of candidates are seriously lacking.

[AUChizad]

Gingrich isn't all that bad.

http://reason.com/blog/2011/12/02/newt-gingrich-savior-of-internet-porn

Newt Gingrich, Savior of Internet Porn?

Peter Suderman | December 2, 2011

She turned him into a Newt. What’s the Internet for? As anyone who’s seen Avenue Q knows, it’s for porn. And for that, we may owe at least partial thanks to fast-rising GOP primary contender Newt Gingrich.

At Mother Jones, Tim Murphy reports on 1995 legislation put forth by Democratic Sen. Jim Exon intended to tamp down on Internet “indecency”:

    Exon introduced an amendment to the Communications Decency Act criminalizing the transmission of "indecent" materials over the internet. In case any stone remained unturned, it went after internet service providers as well: Email or distribute nude photos—or even just type one of the "seven words you can't say on television"—and you could face a $100,000 fine or up to two years in prison.

    To illustrate the danger of internet porn, Exon compiled an album of graphic images he'd found on the web—including one of a man engaging in intercourse with a German shepherd—in a blue binder with a red "caution" sticker, and invited his colleagues to take a look.

    Exon's measure passed the Senate with 86 votes. The appeal was clear: No elected official wanted to be seen as voting for smut. The Contract With America—Republicans' promise to voters in advance of their landslide win in the 1994 elections—had even contained a provision vowing to crack down on child pornography.

But the bill wasn’t narrowly targeted at child pornography. Indeed, it might have made all sorts of popular culture illegal to distribute on the web.

    ...As Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) pointed out in a particularly inspired floor speech, the law could even have criminalized the online distribution of Gingrich's first novel, 1945, in which a "pouting sex kitten"—who is also a Nazi—seduces a White House aide in order to extract classified information. It would also have prohibited most non-Will Smith forms of hip-hop.

    "[The amendment] is clearly a violation of free speech and it's a violation of the right of adults to communicate with each other," Gingrich said at the time. "I don't agree with it…" In an interview with British journalist David Frost, he elaborated on his position. "I think there you have a perfect right on a noncensorship basis to intervene decisively against somebody who would prey upon children. And that I would support very intensely. It's very different than trying to censor willing adults."

    With Gingrich's support, Rep. Chris Cox (R-Calif.) and Rep. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) crafted an alternative proposal that eschewed punitive measures for online wardrobe malfunctions and expletives, and instead emphasized private, parental education initiatives. The bill passed the House overwhelmingly. Although the Senate's version was part of the law that eventually passed, it was overturned by the Supreme Court the next year in Reno v. ACLU. What remained was Gingrich's language.

I suspect this was more a product of Gingrich’s geeky enthusiasm for technology than an ardent belief in the absolute right to free speech. Indeed, in other circumstances, he’s pushed to restrict freedom of expression, suggesting, as Jacob Sullum noted yesterday, that we ought to have a “serious debate about the First Amendment” focused on ways to reduce terrorists “capacity to use free speech.” And in 1987, he cosponsored the Fairness in Broadcasting Act, which was an attempt to codify the Fairness Doctrine—a speech regulation which required broadcasters to devote equal time to discussions of political issues—just as the FCC was abandoning it.

On the other hand, maybe Gingrich just has a healthy respect for porn: In 2009, his Business Defense and Advisory Council named the president of a porn DVD superstore entrepreneur of the year.  Gingrich’s staff later indicated that the award was a mistake.

Read Jacob Sullum on Gingrich's less-than-spectacular civil liberties record.

[djsimp]

Does this help or hurt Newt?

http://news.yahoo.com/herman-cain-endorse-newt-gingrich-100226976.html

..Herman Cain Will Endorse Newt Gingrich
By Dashiell Bennett | The Atlantic Wire

......In a move that is not totally unsurprising, but that could provide a big boost of energy to his surging campaign, Newt Gingrich is about to receive an endorsement from recently deposed presidential candidate Herman Cain. Fox5 Atlanta was the first to report the story, which says that announcement could comes as soon as today — right after Gingrich meets with Donald Trump, of course.



If you were off the grid this weekend, you may not have noticed that Cain "suspended" his campaign on Saturday, even while continuing to deny the allegations of the 13-year affair that are forced him to quit. Gingrich was already hoping to be the beneficiary of Cain supporters looking for a new horse to back, but now the pizza magnate looks set to officially throw his weight, such as it is, behind Newt.



However, it's unclear that Gingrich is prepared to turn this endorsement into votes. He continued to rise in the polls this weekend, and is now the one clear challenger remaining to threaten Mitt Romney's inevitability as the Republican nominee. But as Trip Gabriel and Jeff Zeleny write in The New York Times today, Gingrich simply does have not the organization, manpower, or money needed to turn that ethereal support into actual votes. Mitt Romney has essentially been building his state-by-state organization since bowing out in 2004, and Newt has less than a month remaining to play catch-up. He and Cain both have the fans, but without "boots on the ground" won't amount to much on primary days. Even if he manages surprises in Iowa and New Hampshire, will he be prepared to go toe-to-toe with Romney in 50 states?


Also, what might have been even more valuable than Cain's endorsement, was the distraction that he provided when he was still running. His various scandals and missteps conveniently took much of the negative spotlight away from Gingrich, who is now fully under the microscope of voters and the media. The worst thing that can happen to Gingrich right at this moment is for voters to take a serious look as his viability (and his glaring weaknesses) to decide if he's truly the best candidate for the party. All his faults are now on display and Cain won't be there to take the bullets anymore.

[GH2001]

Does this help or hurt Newt?

http://news.yahoo.com/herman-cain-endorse-newt-gingrich-100226976.html

Help. By the way, thats a horribly written article. I hope he meant "since bowing out in 2008". What that dickhead doesn't understand is that you don't have to go toe to toe in 50 states to win it. If he takes 4 of the first 5 states from Romney (which he probably will), the momentum and surge will be unreal. Funds will flow in, people will volunteer in other states. This happened to McCain. His campaign was dead in the water. He won a few of the first states and the momentum snowballed. Romney was beat then by an old hack. He can certainly be beat now by someone with better credentials than McCain.

Cain is a very likeable guy and despite what many in the media say, very popular. 90% of the Cain supporters will go to Newt. Unless he does something miraculous, Romney is done as well. This is Newt's race to lose. He should get near the 50% mark in the polls with still 6-7 people left in the race. Not bad.  The media and the neocon establishment are hell bent on securing Romney the nomination. I hope the public doesn't go for it.

And I agree on that point Chizad. I think that was a good stance for Newt in regards to free speech and the internet. Adults should be allowed to do whatever they wish so long as they are no obviously harming anyone else. The main thing I like about Newt (and maybe the only thing, but MOST important) is that he has a track record economically and he knows how to get economic results. Huntsman is really the only other candidate who can show REAL results of economic improvement.

[RWS]

This field of candidates are seriously lacking.

I asked a while back, does anybody know how the to be POTUS? I just don't think so. Like you, I think Obama has done a shitty job, but I don't see a candidate that can unfuck anything that his predecessors have fucked up. Some of them have good plans for this, that, or the other, but nobody has that great of an overall plan IMO. It's just sad, really.

[AUTiger1]

I asked a while back, does anybody know how the to be POTUS? I just don't think so. Like you, I think Obama has done a shitty job, but I don't see a candidate that can unfuck anything that his predecessors have fucked up. Some of them have good plans for this, that, or the other, but nobody has that great of an overall plan IMO. It's just sad, really.

I think some of them have a clue and what it will be like to an extent, but I don't think any of them actually know what kind of shit storm they are stepping into.

To be honest, I think Newt has more of a clue than any of the others.  Why?  B/c he is exactly what I bitch about.  A beltway insider that has been there long enough that he knows how it works.  He is smart, no doubt and he is smuggy as hell.  A "deal with it" kind of person, but I think he has to much Neo-Con in him to make a good run. 

I like certain things about certain candidates, but you are correct, no one has a great enough plan overall that makes me giddy.  Still pissed about the fact that out of all the candidates I have had the choice of voting for in my voting lifetime, they have all sucked.   

[GH2001]

I think some of them have a clue and what it will be like to an extent, but I don't think any of them actually know what kind of shit storm they are stepping into.

To be honest, I think Newt has more of a clue than any of the others.  Why?  B/c he is exactly what I bitch about.  A beltway insider that has been there long enough that he knows how it works.  He is smart, no doubt and he is smuggy as hell.  A "deal with it" kind of person, but I think he has to much Neo-Con in him to make a good run. 

I like certain things about certain candidates, but you are correct, no one has a great enough plan overall that makes me giddy.  Still pissed about the fact that out of all the candidates I have had the choice of voting for in my voting lifetime, they have all sucked.

I think its funny that Newt called Romney a Rockefeller Republican. Tis true too.

I don't think it's as bad as RWS post illustrates. Problem now is you have the internet and a 24/7 news cycle. There is going to be dirt, no matter how small or big, on EVERY SINGLE CANDIDATE...and its nauseating. Even Reagan in today's world would have some dirt exposed and the news media would cause people to have doubts about him. That's what dirt digging and negative campaigning will do. I think Newt is very economically sound. Right now, thats about ALL that matters to me. He has the track record as speaker and could do it again. Ive spoke ill of him in the past but in the last 2-3 months Ive listerned to him more and actually read every word of his economic plan online. The guy makes sense where it counts.

At this point I just dont really care about how many women he fucked in the 80s. He would create jobs. He would get the economy sorted out. End of story.

[AUChizad]

I think its funny that Newt called Romney a Rockefeller Republican. Tis true too.

That's a bad thing? Especially in the current economic climate?