GOOD DAMNED DEAL. It would serve the Conservative Right right. heheheheeheh bwhahahahah Gotta love it.

Larry

So . . . Gingrich thinks the teabaggers are ruining the GOP comeback.

Well . . . DUH!

What was his first clue?

It couldn't have been that bunch of idiots on TV with teabags stabled to every inch of their clothes.

Naw . . . it couldn't have been that.

Ringling Bros. had nothing on that three-ring circus.

I still laugh when I think of that chubby woman in the big straw hat with teabags dangling all over the place.

I thought it odd that the GOP was behind this clownish display at a time when voters were looking for a serious thinker to run the country.

Were we all supposed to go jump in the Boston Harbor or what?

*** Gingrich: Tea Party Will Doom GOP Comeback ***

...........good.........

What is going to doom the GOP is if Republicans like Newt keep supporting big government tax and spend candidates. Blaming ones failures on others success is a bit childlike Newt.

The lefties don't understand. Conservatives are going to take the party back much the same way the DailyKOS Democrats took the Democrat party.

Good. Either the GOP is for small government, or they're no different from the Dumbos. Had Gingrich et al pushed through on their Term Limits pledge, it would be a different country today. But no.

Had Gingrich et al pushed through on their Term Limits pledge, it would be a different country today.
......#6 | Posted by rightisright

.....there's something we can agree on.......

1. term limits
2. ban earmarks
3. ban amendments to legislation, so that each bill lives or dies on its own merits
4. make it illegal for elected reps to know who donated to their re-election, by sending the money through a non-partisan public office
5. make all lobbying contacts public - put them on C-span
6. independent commission for redistricting

"1. term limits"

YES. But we have to consider how long is too long. There is a benefit to more than a term or two, in getting to know the ropes and gain some power. Hm. Maybe not--maybe we go all neophytes, all the time. : )

"2. ban earmarks"

Yes. Although that's part of the horse trading that goes on to get bills through.

"3. ban amendments to legislation, so that each bill lives or dies on its own merits"

YES. Single-issue voting. How about adding that all legislators engage in up-down votes, no "present." (Insert anti-Obama remark here.)

"4. make it illegal for elected reps to know who donated to their re-election, by sending the money through a non-partisan public office"

Hey, that's pretty cool.

"5. make all lobbying contacts public - put them on C-span"

This one I don't agree with. I say make results public, but for me, this is like executive session at school boards, etc. It's hard to lay reality on the line or to explain issues in the detail necessary for citizens not to think they're being snowed. (I didn't word that well.) But if two experts are talking, it rather interferes with communication if you have to state it clearly enough for a general audience.

"6. independent commission for redistricting"

Not bad. I'd also like some explanation of why redistricting is necessary. (Does that contradict what I just tried to say about #5? : ) )

"Good. Either the GOP is for small government, or they're no different from the Dumbos. Had Gingrich et al pushed through on their Term Limits pledge, it would be a different country today. But no.

#6 | Posted by rightisright "

this is hilarious. Please tell me who was the last Republican president who cut spending or the deficit after coming into office? Republicans always increase spending after coming into office.

And Ron Paul is an attention seeking muppet not to be taken seriously.

5.This one I don't agree with

The lobbyists are bribing the legislators at secret meetings. Both Repub and Dems get convicted on a regular basis for this. When they are lobbying, part of the lobbying is money, whores, junkets, secret deals. If you make lobbying open to the public, then they have to keep to honest arm-twisting,not outright bribery.

****I'd also like some explanation of why redistricting is necessary.***

.....due to shifting populations, a representative is supposed to represent roughly the same number of people, but over the years, this has become a way for parties in power to identify postal codes that vote for them, and juggle them to fix the outcome.....

*** But if two experts are talking,***

Lobbyist: Senator, we will contribute 2 million to your re-election if you support this bill, which will fleece the American public for 100 billion.

Senator: 2 million ? You cheap bastards, pony up the cash or I'm following my conscience and abstaining on that bill.

"The lobbyists are bribing the legislators at secret meetings. Both Repub and Dems get convicted on a regular basis for this. When they are lobbying, part of the lobbying is money, whores, junkets, secret deals. If you make lobbying open to the public, then they have to keep to honest arm-twisting,not outright bribery."

Hm. Fair enough in its point. But what of my clarity/explanation point? Not valid? Not true?

For me, I wonder (I don't know) if it's like my school contract negotiations: There are things that neither side really wants to have to say in public or to take the time to explain. Maybe there's no analogy. (And the union-haters will immediately jump to say that I'm about protecting back-room deals. Nope. Teams from each side share details with the larger groups they represent. But... oh, never mind, the unconvinceable will remain unconvinceable. And yes, I just made up a word.)

".....due to shifting populations, a representative is supposed to represent roughly the same number of people, but over the years, this has become a way for parties in power to identify postal codes that vote for them, and juggle them to fix the outcome....."

That latter part is the reason you want it public--I get that. I'd never had the reason for the action so clearly explained. But I should have been able to figure it out with a half-second's thought, eh? : ) Thanks for not pointing out my lack.

Skiz--I appreciate your fervor, but sometimes lobbyists are actually lobbying and senators are actually listening. There are interest groups who exist to provide information, not to bribe. Damned cynics. : )

"Had Gingrich et al pushed through on their Term Limits pledge, it would be a different country today. But no."

Well, you have to admit it was status quo. Of the eight main provisions of the Contract With America, exactly ZERO became law.

And the Republicans have decided that was such an unmitigated success, they want to do it again.

***But what of my clarity/explanation point? Not valid? Not true? ***

......true, but, lobbyists are not the only source of information available to lawmakers, they have a huge staff, giant departments of experts at their disposal, THEY CAN GET ANY INFORMATION THEY WANT....

.....the LOBBYISTS ARE ONLY THERE FOR their own self-interest, lobbying is a uniquely American political process that works against the larger population's well being........

.....my personal opinion, is that lobbying should be a capital offense, due to it's treasonous nature in undermining our country.......

Newt speaks more sense than he ever did as Speaker, but who is listening?

Not Michelle Bachmann and Sarah Palin

but sometimes lobbyists are actually lobbying and senators are actually listening. There are interest groups who exist to provide information, not to bribe. Damned cynics. : )
........#13 | Posted by pragmatist

.....I hate to burst your bubble......but there are no groups who exist to 'inform' senators without having an ax to grind......

......and no senator will take an hour out of his day, if it will not mean more money for his re-election........

......you may verify what I am saying very easily.....

.....call your Senator's office, tell them that you are Mr Pragmatist, and that you have some great information that you would like to pass along to the Senator on how to make a better America, try to see if you can get an appointment without promising to make a size-able donation......and that goes for both Repubs and Dems.....

".....the LOBBYISTS ARE ONLY THERE FOR their own self-interest, lobbying is a uniquely American political process that works against the larger population's well being........"

Do you really believe that of all lobbyists? There are education lobbies and energy lobbies and... and... and... It's not all Big Tobacco and Big Energy and Big Pharma... Although those folks probably get the greatest attention 'cause they have the Big Money. (At the same time, I think of NEA, and I'm glad we have a presence in Washington. Are the folks in power more likely to listen to someone representing a huge group or to an individual, no matter how smart, who comes in to talk about, say, education?)

I'm just not sure that there isn't somewhere between televising and hiding...

The problem with Newt is that he is a Republican first and a Conservative second. I am sure that he would support Karl Marx himself if he ran as a Republican in some Liberal district. What is the point of the GOP making a comeback if they are going to give us more borrow-and-spend big brother government, wars of agression and more laws that violate the Constitution and Bill of Rights. We want real Conservatives, as in people who understand the limitations of the power of government, not just people who pay lip service to Republican talking points.

It seems to me that Newt has been hanging around Liberals too much.

This tea party movement is a fringe element that will never be taken seriously.

Here is why. If they claim they are not associated with any political party, this movement will not progress very far.

IF they declare as a political party they will be dismissed as a third party that will never accomplish much.

If they try to believe they will be taking back the GOP that will not fly very far with the voters. That is the whole GOP problem now. They GOP are perceived as extremists who will not allow moderate voices to appeal to the mainstream of the citizens and voters.

Yes say what you will about Newt he is a very astute observer. Not many people who have faith in the GOP or their future.

Best they can do is be the party of NO, the anit everything agenda is about all they have left and that will not gain much traction.

'We want real Conservatives, as in people who understand the limitations of the power of government, not just people who pay lip service to Republican talking points.'

#20 | Posted by member2586

Whoever WE is - it is not near a majority of the voting public so do carry on.

I want to address this party of no business. Why should Republican vote yes on something if they believe that such laws will harm America? Republicans have alternatives but since they don't control the levers of power in congress, their bills cant's be considered in the floor or even committees.

Third parties have throught history accomplished much even if they don't achieve electoral success. One of the majaor parties co opts their ideas which is why people founded third parties to beging with, to get the attention of their public servants mistalently refered to by many people as "leaders."

Democrats have a problem with moderats too. You have 40 pro lifers in the house who won't vote for a bill if abortion if funded, but an equal number who insist it shuld be funder or else they won't support the bill. Funny how it's always the Republican party who should compromise with moderates, Democrats are never asked by the state run media to do likewise.

"Whoever WE is - it is not near a majority of the voting public so do carry on."

The Constitution being obeyed to the letter of the law is not negotiable, it is not subject to the whims of the majority.

"and more laws that violate the Constitution and Bill of Rights. We want real Conservatives"

Bwahahahahaha.

That said, I agree--why not have two parties that are very different? How about BOTH throwing off the yoke of corporations and special interests and acting on VALUES, whatever those values might be--you know, standing for something.

+++++

"state run media"

Hm. When did that come about? There was a pre-election coup, if half you people are to be believed. How soon we forget the rah-rah media of at least half the time Bush was in office. *sigh*

And btw, if you folks think that the media we have is bad, then you should be FOR local control and limitations on the oligolopoly.

The Democrats have put in charge of their party the far left and gained control of The House, The Senate and The Presidency. So now we should listen to them when they tell us to put in place moderates like John McCain who can reach across the aisle? Right! Why because they have the GOP's best interest in mind? Reach across that aisle and they won't take your arm they will take your Country.

"The Constitution being obeyed to the letter of the law is not negotiable, it is not subject to the whims of the majority."

No, it was written by an elite few who wouldn't probably want anywhere near the level of pluralism we have today--or at least would be very uncomfortable with it.

And it is subject to the rulings of the Supreme Court, often determined by precedent and highly influenced by social mores. The Constitution and the Bill of Rights are not the secular equivalent of the Ten Commandments. They are living documents, subject to interpretation and change. We have a system that addresses the forms that interpretation and that change can take.

And where were you when posse comitatus and habeas corpus went away? When warrantless wiretapping became common? When librarians were told to give up records and that they couldn't disclose such "requests"? (The list is bigger than that.) If you weren't complaining about those things, what the hell are you complaining about now? (Cap and trade? Health bill? Btw, I think both of those are poor solutions to big problems, but I don't think you'd like my answers any better.)

Far left? In America? It is to laugh.

"If they claim they are not associated with any political party, this movement will not progress very far."

This is the problem with organizing conservatives, its like herding cats. They are individuals, which is why we will never congeal into a viable party. it goes against the grain of individualism to organize. Unlike the left in which they can organize for bigger government, because they tend to be more social, but the devil for them is in the details after they claim power, thats where the left falls apart, Hayek is very instructive on this problem.

Monstman, my take on this is that Newt doesn't appear to understand what happened in NY23 or why it was significant to the GOP. I see no problem in special elections or primaries to run conservative candidates, it takes the temperature of the country. If they win well it is what it is. As a teabagger, I want the party to move away from this "moderate" tag, and into more conservative approach.

Heck even Obama in the SOTU leak appears to be moving more conservative, which is why it was leaked, they understand the the meaning of NY23 as a reflection of the country. Whether he does it or not remains to be seen, same with the GOP.

Dear Pragmatist,

Come on, no left in America?

Deny! Deny! Deny! Reminds me of Bill Clinton when he shook his finger at the entire country and lied about soiling that young girls dress or more recently when Candidate Barack H. Obama lied about not having any Earmarks.

'"Whoever WE is - it is not near a majority of the voting public so do carry on."

The Constitution being obeyed to the letter of the law is not negotiable, it is not subject to the whims of the majority.'

#25 | Posted by member2586

You were smart enough to pick up on that right away. Your movements electoral success will be nil. The only electoral effect will be to prevent GOP success. Thank you for that!

Third party movements CAN have effect on the process when there is sufficient support of the masses and your position is correct. Tea Baggers don't have either of those.

It is a classic example of the right idea but at the wrong TIME. The right proposed the same conservative notions during the great depression and there was a fringe third party involvement and that was as far as she goes!

The conservatives positions of the current tea baggers are wrong because massive economic government stimulus spending is what got us out of the great depression and it is getting the USA of of this one as well.

In fact Obama is doing such a great job at recovery that we really have not had a great recession as a result of this prolonged recession and that was a great fear a year ago.

All the hard efforts of the political tea baggers are simply making the masses grumble a bit - they STILL back Obama regardless of how grumpy they are about his methods they LOVE the results!

As a teabagger, I want the party to move away from this "moderate" tag, and into more conservative approach.

#30 | Posted by AndreaMackris

You will never get that regardless of constitutional issues.

America is a two party system end of story. That is THE political fact of the matter involved here.

If your party cannot gain the votes to win you will never be in a position to push forward your agenda. The GOP simply cannot win elections in this modern era clinging the to the old conservative viewpoint.

The moderates are the only way to achieve a win for the GOP. Newt is smart about that kind of stuff. The Tea Bagger point of view will not be enough to catch fire with the masses and thus will not get much done in the long run. Influence on a loosing party is about all you can hope for.

At some point in the far future your ideas may be able to gain some steam once economic recovery is no longer threatened. For the near term get ready for the swing to the left my tea bagging friend!

"The moderates are the only way to achieve a win for the GOP."

Thawt would be a pointless "victory" then. Look at what happened with Schwarzenegger. The words "miserable failure" come to mind.

Obuma, pislosi, and his SS Czars are moving more and militarily Communist every day, now with this forced health care agenda Obuma is on his way out, his popularity is waning...

American citizens who refuse to purchase an Obama- approved health insurance plan will face fines of up to 250,000 dollars and up to 5 years in jail.

When asked what gave Congress the right to institute such a tyrannical mandate, Senator Jack Reed actually had the nerve to tell CNS News that it was constitutionally justified.

WHY? Because according to Reed it was no different than making people sign up for the draft...

Do you get that?

As far as pelosi, Obama, and Jack Reed and radical leftists in Congress are concerned, THEY have every right to force you to purchase a Pelosi-Obama approved Health Care Plan under penalty of Law.

And apparently like the Draft, it's your solemn duty to purchase their so-called Health Care plan... or else.

If you cross them...If you are not covered by a health care plan that has the Obama-Pelosi seal of approval, the IRS will assess a penalty of up to 2.5 percent and if you resist paying, this penalty, you can go to jail for up to 5 years and/or be fined up to 250,000 dollars...

As aggravated as I get with both national parties.. and just taking Newt at what he said, not what pundits have expanded it to say, I agree.

If a faction of the republican party loses a primary election, and then for whatever reason, pulls out and runs as a third party.. in most cases.. both the Republican candidate and the third party candidate are going to lose to the democrat.

And, that works both ways in most cases.. third party liberal candidates have helped Republicans get elected as well.

NMG-
I had posted the same Newt thought a week or two ago in light of his support for the woman in NY 23.

The challenge for Reps is to nominate more conservative candidates. Third party folks can 'send a message' but result in the oppositon gaining that seat.

Dirk: I never said there is no left in America. I said "Far left? In America? It is to laugh." I'm in pretty good conservative company on this one: George Fucking Will. Hardly a leftie apologist. I'm talking from a historical perspective that includes the world outside our borders. Calling Obama a socialist (sans qualifiers) is like calling George W Bush a fascist--incomplete at best. (And insulting me doesn't help your argument.)

Btw, you ignored all my commentary about the Constitution.

+++++

Dr Feelgood: "American citizens who refuse to purchase an Obama- approved health insurance plan will face fines of up to 250,000 dollars and up to 5 years in jail."

Link, please. This is the first time I've heard of a 1/4 million dollar penalty, even from rightwing critics. Never mind jail time.

But anyway, please show me in the Constitution where it says that Congress can't enact such a law.

Of course, I think we should just go all the way to single-payer, or to some combo of all the other systems out there. Why is our way always the best way? Just 'cause we're America, it seems. Nothin' like a little nationalism to prove your point. Whee.

+++++

I like it that Andrea calls herself a teabagger. So much for that "label imposed by leftwing critics" point, eh?

+++++

Btw, I was told recently by someone on another forum that pretty much every poll except Fox and Rasmussen show that the public is in favor of some kind of public option, government-managed health insurance. Here it seems we only hear that the people feel quite the opposite. Hm. I don't read enough polls to know, and I don't put much stock in them when I do 'cause I know enough about survey question-writing to know what you can do with a poll...

"And, that works both ways in most cases.. third party liberal candidates have helped Republicans get elected as well."

It is the reason third parties are virtually always just spoilers. Usually whichever of the two other parties who is closest to the third party on the issues will lose to the one farthest from the third party. There are exceptions but not too many.
Even Teddy Roosevelt lost when he ran as a third party candidate instead of as a Republican. Democrat Woodrow Wilson was elected because of it.

What we really need to do, very quickly, very badly, is to get rid of both parties. They are both derelict in their failure to promote the general welfare.

Van Jones a member of the Communist Party and past Czar for President Barack H. Obama is not far left? Got it!

"And where were you when posse comitatus and habeas corpus went away? When warrantless wiretapping became common? When librarians were told to give up records and that they couldn't disclose such "requests"? (The list is bigger than that.) If you weren't complaining about those things, what the hell are you complaining about now?"

I did not know this was directed at me since it had not a thing to do with my above post. Was this is typical shifting focus tactic? President Obama would be proud that one of his little solders picked up on his methods.

With that said again you assume I was for these things and again I will inform you that I voted for a Libertarian Candidate who switched parties mainly because of the unwillingness of the Bush Administration to repeal portions of the Patriot Act.

Question. What was the date President Barack H. Obama passed a law and repealed these items? Oh that is right he was too busy with his Marxist move to take over portions of the private sector.

Screw off Newt. They did it to themselves. It's way past time for that the democrat and republican parties to go the way of the duck billed platapus.

'The challenge for Reps is to nominate more conservative candidates. Third party folks can 'send a message' but result in the oppositon gaining that seat.'

#37 | Posted by OohRah

Exactly the opposite is happening. This is a result of the current political swing to the left. More moderate candidates must be elected to gain victory. Conservative candidates have a hard time winning the primary, let alone the general election.

'Obuma, pislosi, and his SS Czars are moving more and militarily Communist every day, now with this forced health care agenda Obuma is on his way out, his popularity is waning...'

#35 | Posted by Dr_Feelgood

People on the left were lamenting that Reagan was Hitler, etc. the last time there was a large swing to the right back in the 1980's. Such hyperbole wasn't true then and your labels are just as bogus now.

"What we really need to do, very quickly, very badly, is to get rid of both parties. They are both derelict in their failure to promote the general welfare."

NO, what we need to do is take over these parties. We blog and whine while others go to party meetings, raise funds, campaign and help promote policies and candidates. You start at the local level attending your Democratic Party meetings not blogging here. I'm as guilty as any but I hope to change that in the coming year. I have plenty of time on my hands and could start, at least, finding out more about how I could realistically be involved. On Thom Hartmann's radio show he preaches this message and about a week or so ago a guy called in and told him he was running for City Council (I think it was) and it was all because he took Thom's advice and started going to meetings and becoming involved.

#44 | Posted by danni at 2009-11-15 07:17 PM

LoL. Kinda like teabaggers, eh? You know, the people you make fun of.

Danni,

Today the presidency of her bowling team, tomorrow the world.

Sounds like Danni is espousing what Palin has long known.

Don't worry Danni. Some day you'll put down the joint. Some day. Lmao

Ticking away the moments that make up a dull day.

You twitter and waste the hours in an off hand way.

lol

I have plenty of time on my hands #44 | Posted by danni at 2009-11-15 07:17 PM

roflmao

'Sounds like Danni is espousing what Palin has long known.

Don't worry Danni. Some day you'll put down the joint. Some day. Lmao'

#47 | Posted by Washboard

WHAT!? You don't think your Moose Mama Palin hasn't taken a few tokes in her day?

Had Gingrich et al pushed through on their Term Limits pledge, it would be a different country today. But no.

#6 | Posted by rightisright at 2009-11-15 11:26 AM | Reply | Flag: Voted GOP party ticket his entire life.

I think the GOP needs to campaign from the hard right-death penalty for women having abortions, Xians only in the military, replace judges with baptist ministers. cancel SS and medicare and balance the budget in one year while staying in Iraq until they give Bush a victory parade, even if it takes a hundred years. Ban unions and pay companies to move jobs to China. Give lobbyists veto power over Bills.

"LoL. Kinda like teabaggers, eh? You know, the people you make fun of."

Actually yes, just like them. I might disagree with most of the things they believe but I will give them credit, they don't sit around waiting for someone else to get it done. Those of us on the left have one big problem, we're lazy and we haven't gotten involved. If we ever actually do then many of the things we claim we want to get done will get done. Til then, I have to plead guilty, we haven't done enough of the things we need to do to get the things we want done accomplished. I think really that is the message that Barack Obama has been sending us while we criticize him for not being more forceful on healthcare, the economy, etc. As FDR said when people asked him why he hadn't done more to combat the depression, he said "make me." Sitting at home on a blog isn't making anyone do anything, I'm starting to realize that politics is still the same as it was before the internet. The blogs just give us an excuse, let us feel like we are actually doing something when really we're just wasting our time. It's a past time not a real way of creating change. Useful for coordination and organization but not a replacement for activism.
Hey, I'm sort of old and sort of lazy, I don't know if I will actually do anything but if we ever want real change some of us had better stop blogging and get busy.

"Van Jones a member of the Communist Party and past Czar for President Barack H. Obama is not far left? Got it!"

Because one appoints someone of a certain type, one is that type? That's a leap I've never understood. Again, we look at evidence in different ways. Oh, well.

"And where were you when posse comitatus and habeas corpus went away? When warrantless wiretapping became common? When librarians were told to give up records and that they couldn't disclose such "requests"? (The list is bigger than that.) If you weren't complaining about those things, what the hell are you complaining about now?"
I did not know this was directed at me since it had not a thing to do with my above post. Was this is typical shifting focus tactic? President Obama would be proud that one of his little solders picked up on his methods.

ME: What? You brought up current admin's violation of the Constitution. If you're going to criticize this admin for that (and I've not seen them do anything that violates the Constitution, but I"m ready to be enlightened). It's not focus-shifting; it's asking a logical question. If you're complaining now (about what?), I hope you complained then. I'm asking you, or rather those who make accusations of Constitution problems, to be consistent.

And I didn't assume you were for anything. I asked a question. Or posited a hope.

Finally, no, President Obama has not done anything about these, and I am VERY disappointed. But btw, he can't pass a law. He's the president, not Congress.

"Because one appoints someone of a certain type, one is that type? That's a leap I've never understood."

Adolph Hitler (Socialist) appointed Joseph Goebbels (Socialist) This doesn't mean they share the same DNA however it does mean they are like minded.

Surely you grasp this or is this just a little more of that child like denial that you enjoy using as a defense? Maybe it is Joseph Goebbels "Big Lie" technique?

#54 | Posted by Dirk

I see there's a new, right-libertarian/propertarian here. Welcome aboard, Dick.

Are you sure he's new?

I'm not even gonna try to point out the logical fallacy of calling Hitler a Socialist, nor of trying to obliquely link President Obama with Hitler. And another "OH GOD, Obama is a socialist!" shouter suggesting that I'm guilty of perpetrating the Big Lie. Fuckin' funny, really.

"Are you sure he's new? "

Well, he joined today. Surely he's not a troll?

"From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs"-Karl Marx

"I think when you spread the wealth around, it's good for everybody."-Barack H. Obama

Sorry to spoil your little sewing circle girls. Don't worry though unlike a lot of Obama supporters with their hand out I actually have to go to work tomorrow. Cheers bitches!

Don't forget to add fries to my order, dirk.

Oh, I wasn't intimating troll; I was suggesting that he wasn't born last night, and that maybe, just maybe, he is not who he seems... (cue spooky music)

And whew, I'm glad he said "unlike a lot of Obama supporters"--using the three-inch brush, rather than the four-inch brush. God knows I don't work.

Oh, I wasn't intimating troll; I was suggesting that he wasn't born last night, and that maybe, just maybe, he is not who he seems... (cue spooky music)

And whew, I'm glad he said "unlike a lot of Obama supporters"--using the three-inch brush, rather than the four-inch brush. God knows I don't work.

Posted by pragmatist at 2009-11-15 10:20 PM | Reply

LMAO. Can You imagine a newborn sitting somewhere blogging on the Retort?? Instead of RCADE giving the newborn dumps the baby would be giving RCADE Dumps Himself. Nice smelly dumps. bwhahahahahahaha

Larry

The idea man Gingrich is a typical example of spent professional political force. An example for term limits is refreshed daily. The only question is: are the voters cognitive enough to realize this?

So . . . Gingrich thinks the teabaggers are ruining the GOP comeback.

Well . . . DUH!

What was his first clue?

#2 | Posted by Twinpac

Actually, I think that is the whole idea. Both major parties are hopelessly corrupt...

...the teabaggers don't like either of them.

There is so much irony in Gingrich making such a statement.

As many have already pointed out, Gingrich is a hypocrite and the core of the problem himself within the GOP.

Second, doesn't Gingrich realize that the Tea Party movement has been completely hijacked by his ilk? Of course he knows. The true grassroots inception of the Tea Party Movement was far from what it is today. It was based on constitutional personal liberties and limits to government intervention based on constitutional principles. Gingrich knows that the the group is seeing the hyporcrisy of people like himself, Beck, Hannity and others that have hijacked their cause. Many are waking up to the vast hypocrisy.

Indeed, after the recent debacle in NY, Gingrich is fully aware of the dangers to his own political future.

Teabaggers are Proof of Natural Selection at work...

"A few more speed bumps along the way, and then off
to the long list of extinct ideologies"

or was that Idiotologies?

GOP is dead already...or at least, they just roll over and play dead...

What's the source of the Reed, "same as the Draft" quote? All I have seen are blogs and blog equivalents.

'It seems to me that Newt has been hanging around Liberals too much.'

#21 | Posted by member2586

You are Lunatic Fringe and will never be paid much attention to except by fellow tea baggers.

Evidence your statement that Newt is becoming liberal - case closed.

#70 | Posted by Monstman at 2009-11-16 04:54 PM | Reply | Flag: Pussy that calls in sick with a cold

You are Lunatic Fringe...