Major reason why Gingrinch should not be president

[Comish]

I heard that Sarah Palin had recently endorsed Newt, and he in turn said she would get a Cabinet post.

Is this true?

If so, I believe that is illegal.

WHAT.................?? A quid pro quo in politics...........??

 

[johnnyrodgers20]

With great difficulty I was listening to Chris Christie (a Romnet supporter) on Meet the press this morning, and two of his statements were very disturning:

1) [regarding Romney's tax returns] "People don't want a looser as president, they want someone who has been successful." It sounded to me like the Republican governor of New Jersey was calling middle class people loosers. And his second ugly comment reinforced that.

2) [regarding job creation] "Middle class people want to work at Staples and Sports authority." This sums up the Republican economic argument. the middle class should be content to fight ove $30K jobs.

Hell, most workers at Staples or Sports Authority would love to make $30k Most of the workers there are going to make at best $24k, with many under $20k.

And those statements further reinforce my opinion that the republicans want a two tier system, much like the aristocracy and the serfs of old Europe.

Keep drinking the koolaid!! No one wants anyone in a certain class. The Repulicans want freedom to pursue their dreams. Individualism, ever heard of it? :confucius

 

[carlfense]

I think Gingrich's perspective must have changed a bit since he was leading the Clinton impeachment circus.

That shoe sure pinches on the other foot.

And I suppose you wanted Clinton impeached for his private affairs, correct? :dunno

Asking questions of a potential nominee equals impeachment in your mind? Can you defend that?

I was a teenager during the Clinton impeachment. My opinion then is hardly relevant.

 

[johnnyrodgers20]

I think Gingrich's perspective must have changed a bit since he was leading the Clinton impeachment circus.

That shoe sure pinches on the other foot.

And I suppose you wanted Clinton impeached for his private affairs, correct? :dunno

Asking questions of a potential nominee equals impeachment in your mind? Can you defend that?

I was a teenager during the Clinton impeachment. My opinion then is hardly relevant.

You are talking about character and that definely qualifies as character. So the past can be irrelevant then according to you, correct? What are your views on Reverend Wright, Bill ayers? :hmmph

 

[knapplc]

I think Gingrich's perspective must have changed a bit since he was leading the Clinton impeachment circus.

That shoe sure pinches on the other foot.

And I suppose you wanted Clinton impeached for his private affairs, correct? :dunno

Asking questions of a potential nominee equals impeachment in your mind? Can you defend that?

I was a teenager during the Clinton impeachment. My opinion then is hardly relevant.

You are talking about character and that definely qualifies as character. So the past can be irrelevant then according to you, correct? What are your views on Reverend Wright, Bill ayers? :hmmph

Just a quick question - johnnyrodgers20, do you realize you're responding to something that isn't/wasn't part of the statement Carlfense made?

 

[carlfense]

I think Gingrich's perspective must have changed a bit since he was leading the Clinton impeachment circus.

That shoe sure pinches on the other foot.

And I suppose you wanted Clinton impeached for his private affairs, correct? :dunno

Asking questions of a potential nominee equals impeachment in your mind? Can you defend that?

I was a teenager during the Clinton impeachment. My opinion then is hardly relevant.

You are talking about character and that definely qualifies as character. So the past can be irrelevant then according to you, correct? What are your views on Reverend Wright, Bill ayers? :hmmph

What? As knapplc noted . . . I didn't say any of that. Heck, you can't even imply that from my statement.

If I were you I would read my post a little more carefully and then go back and edit my reply.

Strange stuff.

 

[Sub-Husker]

I heard that Sarah Palin had recently endorsed Newt, and he in turn said she would get a Cabinet post.
Is this true?

If so, I believe that is illegal.

WHAT.................?? A quid pro quo in politics...........??

From what I understand, this type of quid is specifically called out as illegal... being a promised job for an endorsement.

 

[carlfense]

I heard that Sarah Palin had recently endorsed Newt, and he in turn said she would get a Cabinet post.
Is this true?

If so, I believe that is illegal.

WHAT.................?? A quid pro quo in politics...........??

From what I understand, this type of quid is specifically called out as illegal... being a promised job for an endorsement.

I'm not sure it was that explicit. I think Palin endorsed Gingrich and Gingrich later said that he would offer her a high-level position if he is the nominee. I don't know that he ever said that he offered her the position in return for the endorsement . . . and I don't know that Palin ever said that she endorsed him to secure a position.

 

[Comish]

I heard that Sarah Palin had recently endorsed Newt, and he in turn said she would get a Cabinet post.
Is this true?

If so, I believe that is illegal.

WHAT.................?? A quid pro quo in politics...........??

From what I understand, this type of quid is specifically called out as illegal... being a promised job for an endorsement.

I'm not sure it was that explicit. I think Palin endorsed Gingrich and Gingrich later said that he would offer her a high-level position if he is the nominee. I don't know that he ever said that he offered her the position in return for the endorsement . . . and I don't know that Palin ever said that she endorsed him to secure a position.

Yeah, I wasn't really commenting on the legality or not (those would be tough to prove). I was just having fun with Sub since we all know MOST of these positions are not filled by the truely BEST candidate, but offered as a plum for friends, donors, or like-minded philosophers/supporters.

 

[Sub-Husker]

I'm not sure it was that explicit. I think Palin endorsed Gingrich and Gingrich later said that he would offer her a high-level position if he is the nominee. I don't know that he ever said that he offered her the position in return for the endorsement . . . and I don't know that Palin ever said that she endorsed him to secure a position.

Nobody would be that stupid to offer in such a way with a direct linkage... except perhaps Blogo.

But now we know, Newt thinks high enough of Palin to at this early time state that he will hold a position in his administration.

For Newt's sake I hope that this is quid-pro-quo... because if he is that high on her abilities then we have a real judgement problem.

 

[carlfense]

I'm not sure it was that explicit. I think Palin endorsed Gingrich and Gingrich later said that he would offer her a high-level position if he is the nominee. I don't know that he ever said that he offered her the position in return for the endorsement . . . and I don't know that Palin ever said that she endorsed him to secure a position.

Nobody would be that stupid to offer in such a way with a direct linkage... except perhaps Blogo.

But now we know, Newt thinks high enough of Palin to at this early time state that he will hold a position in his administration.

For Newt's sake I hope that this is quid-pro-quo... because if he is that high on her abilities then we have a real judgement problem.

Do you need MORE evidence that Newt has a judgment problem?

 

[carlfense]

 

[strigori]

With great difficulty I was listening to Chris Christie (a Romnet supporter) on Meet the press this morning, and two of his statements were very disturning:

1) [regarding Romney's tax returns] "People don't want a looser as president, they want someone who has been successful." It sounded to me like the Republican governor of New Jersey was calling middle class people loosers. And his second ugly comment reinforced that.

2) [regarding job creation] "Middle class people want to work at Staples and Sports authority." This sums up the Republican economic argument. the middle class should be content to fight ove $30K jobs.

Hell, most workers at Staples or Sports Authority would love to make $30k Most of the workers there are going to make at best $24k, with many under $20k.

And those statements further reinforce my opinion that the republicans want a two tier system, much like the aristocracy and the serfs of old Europe.

Keep drinking the koolaid!! No one wants anyone in a certain class. The Repulicans want freedom to pursue their dreams. Individualism, ever heard of it? :confucius

You should take your own advise on the koolaid. Just look at the republican views on tax structure. What is a comon theme? No more esate taxes, no more taxes on capital gains, who do you think this supports? Hint: Odds are it isnt someone posting on this board. More and more and more money for the richest of the rich, and cut back on anything for those who arnt as fortunate. They are all about 'freedom' and 'individualism' as long as you have several million in the bank, or are brainwashed enough from religious crap that they keep people convinced to vote against thier own economic interest.

 

[husker_99]

I'm not sure it was that explicit. I think Palin endorsed Gingrich and Gingrich later said that he would offer her a high-level position if he is the nominee. I don't know that he ever said that he offered her the position in return for the endorsement . . . and I don't know that Palin ever said that she endorsed him to secure a position.

Nobody would be that stupid to offer in such a way with a direct linkage... except perhaps Blogo.

But now we know, Newt thinks high enough of Palin to at this early time state that he will hold a position in his administration.

For Newt's sake I hope that this is quid-pro-quo... because if he is that high on her abilities then we have a real judgement problem.

Do you need MORE evidence that Newt has a judgment problem?

People who are good with making money or in a position of power often make terrible decisions on personal matters.

 

[knapplc]

People who are good with making money or in a position of power often make terrible decisions on personal matters.

Is this offered as some kind of excuse for Gingrich's multiple marriages when he's been the champion of "the sanctity of marriage?" I don't get where this statement comes from, or what it's trying to convey. People who are good with making money or in a position of power often make brilliant, wise and mutually-fulfilling decisions on personal matters, too. You can't paint that group with one broad brush of behavior.