No, no, a thousand times NO!

Ed Morrissey:

One man seems to be having a lot of fun in the Republican debates, even though almost no one gives him any chance of contending for the nomination. Free of expectations for success, Newt Gingrich has turned himself into a reliable on-stage rally leader for party unity as well as a voice for attacking the media’s moderators when the questions cross the line into advocacy, at least in Gingrich’s mind. Last night I summed up my feelings on Twitter about Gingrich, writing that I “[d]on’t want him as our nominee, but love having him on our side.”

Gingrich probably feels — publicly, at least — that he has a chance of winning the nomination. However, his repeated efforts to provide cover for the other candidates on the stage rather than go on the attack doesn’t allow him much opportunity to differentiate himself from the frontrunners, or even the pack. But as an e-mailer pointed out to me earlier today, the roles he has chosen for himself fit very nicely into another mold: the running mate.

As bad as Barack Obama is, there are worse options out there. One of those worse options is Newt Gingrich.

If Newt was the GOP nominee, I would vote for Obama.

If he was the candidate to be one heartbeat away from the presidency, I might still have to vote for Obama.

Yes, he’s that bad.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

35 Responses to No, no, a thousand times NO!

  1. Rocky Hussein Squirrel says:

  2. votermom says:

    If he was the candidate to be one heartbeat away from the presidency, I might still have to vote for Obama.
    Seriously? But he would be such perfect impeachment insurance for whoever was top of the ticket. LOL.

  3. votermom says:

    Here’s some happy news – one more judge says Obamacare mandate is unconstitutional.

  4. ralphb says:

    Texas Monthly: Paul Burka on the Tea Party debate

    I thought Romney won the debate. He took it to Perry from the outset, and he went for the intimidation play, staring his rival in the face as Perry gave his answers. Perry stumbled several times. I think of him as someone who has a great feel for his constituency, but I don’t know how anyone could have had a feeling for that constituency. That was one scary audience. Perry muffed the border fence question, muffed the dream act question (though his answers were sincere and courageous, and I agree with him in both cases). I thought he muffed Bachmann’s attack on the HPV question too, saying that he raised $30 million and he couldn’t be bought for $5,000. Crony capitalism is going to stick to Perry. There are too many instances–Harold Simmons and the nuclear waste dump, Bob Perry and the Residential Construction Commission, recipients of emerging technology grants, fund managers who got to invest teacher retirement money. It is a rich lode, and it is going to be mined by his enemies.

    • myiq2xu says:

      he couldn’t be bought for $5,000.

      How much does it take?

    • angienc says:

      Perry came off as super dumb. Even just standing there he looked super-dumb. Even though I don’t think the HPV vaccine thing was a bad thing (from my understanding, having it be “opt out” was because most insurance co.’s weren’t going to pay for it if it was “opt in”) and I’m 100% certain that Michelle Bachmann is 100% wrong on the issue, Perry still came off as super-dumb.

      But you know, as long as Perry stays in long enough to force Bachmann to drop out (they have the same core-constiuency) so there is no chance that she’ll even get the VP slot, I’m ok with him, especially as he seems to be the one doing the “dirty work” to weaken Obama even further.

      I’m 99.9% sure it is going to be Romney/Rubio in 2012.

      • ralphb says:

        My only problem with the HPV issue is him trying to ram it through via executive order and then shamelessly huckstering it while the legislature was killing it. I don’t know of any other mandated vaccine given to school children for a disease which isn’t normally communicable in the school environment. Measles etc are completely different I think. I hope most 6th grade girls aren’t having sex at school.

        I wouldn’t necessarily think it was crony capitalism either, but there are just so many others just like it or worse. If Romney has to, there is enough ammunition to blow him up I think. Bachmann is probably out of it after Iowa or South Carolina, if she wins Iowa, so I’m not too concerned about her. I think it will wind up Romney but I’m not sure about Rubio.

  5. Shush! never, ever let them hear you say you would vote for the fraud! If they find out Newt is the deal breaker, the DNC will install him as the R candidate for sure!

  6. ralphb says:

    Solhyndra a Bush/Obama hosejob

    Unless the investors and timeline in this story is completely made up, Solhyndra was pushed by the Bush admin and picked up the Obama admin. I love bipartisan corruption, so refreshing.

  7. yttik says:

    You could run the anti-Christ and I still wouldn’t vote for Obama. I might be unable to vote at all and I might have to start swimming for Canada, but I will not ever, EVER, vote for Obama.

  8. Dario says:

    If it was for sure that Newt was the nominee, I think Hillary would run.

  9. yttik says:

    “As bad as Barack Obama is, there are worse options out there.”

    Ha! Shouldn’t we at least see what’s in his jobs plan before we conclude that?

    • angienc says:

      Jobs plan? What jobs plan? It isn’t like it is written down somewhere for anyone to actually read. As long as all we have is some vague rallying phrases from Teh Precious, I say we admit the truth:


  10. bevwky says:

    Heh, I think most conservatives are asking themselves who that man on the stage is that looks like Newt Gringrinch is. Or more precisely, where the heck did he come from and is he real?

    • ralphb says:

      I don’t think Gingrich has ever been real. Running for president was a good way to raise money and he’ll stick what remains of it into a foundation of some kind and live off it. Allan Keyes made a living that way for about 12 years.

  11. kbc says:

    For those that want to throw Gingrich under the bus and that he wouldn’t be a good President, think about the following.

    He’s the LAST PERSON TO HEAD CONGRESS that actually balanced the budget for 4 years, and provided the surplus that democrats reference Clinton for. Now if you want the federal government to act like us and balance the budget, wouldn’t it make sense to put someone in office that has actually done that?

    His debating skills are unequaled by any of the candidates and would destroy President Obama in a debate. He knows history and applies it to today’s problems, as well as coming up with alternative ideas that other candidates are now starting to embrace.

    He’s put out plans for American Energy, Immigration Reform, Healthcare, etc. Go to Youtube and view any of his recent speeches, including the GOP debate from last week hosted by the tea party and Jim deMint where the candidates answered fewer questions with 3-4 minute answers.

  12. kbc says:

    Well as Clinton Democrats, you understand that we as Americans right now need someone that has worked across the isle to get things done. Would you rather have a very right non-compromising republican (or for that matter a very left non-compromising democrat) that doesn’t get anything done ? Clinton’s strength was his ability to change course when something wasn’t working to try something new. Granted he was nudged/forced to choose alternatives he wasn’t happy with, but he did it and things turned around.

    Right now, in a favorite line…. don’t want to hand the car keys back to the person that drove us into the ditch. Can’t keep blaming the republicans for the current economy (they screwed up enough). I’m an independent and as such simply want the best person in the White House that can fix the economy. I’d prefer someone that has done it before instead of someone that doesn’t have a track record. We simply don’t have time to experiment.

    More private sector jobs creates more tax revenue for the public sector/government and less overhead because they are no longer on a government welfare/support program costing us all money. Two old lines come to mind: “Many hands make the load light” and “A rising tide raises all ships”. Let’s get an American Energy program in place, put hundreds of thousands of people lo work discovering/constructing/processing American resources, keeping money right here (taxes from both the workers and the businesses) and not sending it overseas. Win/Win. The more people working and revenue coming into the government, the more social programs that can be supported (medicare, schools, etc).

    IMHO, this is not a political issue. In most cases you don’t know the political party of the bosses of the company you work for, so I don’t care what party our President is from. I just want that person to get things done, fix the economy, put Americans back to work, produce our energy at home, fix our schools/roads/infrastructure, and take care of those that can’t take care of themselves. The facts are pretty clear that a Republican is probably going to be in the White House in 2012 (based on history where the economy is this bad for the incumbent), so which pill is the easiest to swallow?

Comments are closed.