Republican 2012 Presidential Nominee

[Gretzky's Mullet]

Mr. Gretzky is just like Bill O'Reilly. He quickly changes the topic and the flow of the debate when met with a proper response with numerous facts and evidence. The elites would definitely love a puppet like Mr. Gretzky if he would've run for president.

[key2thecup]

Gingrich promises JFK-like space speech

GOP presidential candidate Newt Gingrich's space address comes nearly 50 years after President Kennedy's moon-shot speech.

Could it be a coincidence that GOP presidential candidate Newt Gingrich describes his upcoming speech on space policy Wednesday as a "visionary" address "in the John F. Kennedy tradition?"

Perhaps not. After all 2012 is the 50th anniversary of Kennedy's iconic "we choose to go to the moon in this decade" speech, where he performed a presidential Babe Ruth. Like the Sultan of Swat, Kennedy dared to point out a seemingly impossible goal and swing for it - hitting a home run.

Gingrich, aiming to maintain political momentum after Saturday's primary victory in South Carolina, is expected to outline his vision for America in space following the U.S. loss of its more than 30-year-old shuttle program.

Reversing the falling numbers of Florida’s space-affiliated jobs will be a likely message of Gingrich's speech, say industry experts. But more than that, they say the address will be Gingrich's chance to make a very public and detailed commitment to what American space exploration might look like under a Gingrich administration.

The former House speaker offered a hint during Monday’s debate when he suggested cutting bureaucratic fat from NASA and using cash prizes as incentives to reach national space goals.

“There’s every reason to believe that there’s a lot of folks in this country and around the world who would put up an amazing amount of money and would make the Space Coast literally hum with activity because they’d be drawn to achieve these prizes: going back to the moon permanently, getting to Mars as rapidly as possible, building a series of space stations and developing commercial space,” Gingrich said. “There are a whole series of things we could do that could be dynamic that are more than just better government bureaucracy.”

The idea would save Washington hundreds of billions of dollars, says top Gingrich adviser and ex-Pennsylvania Rep. Bob Walker. “It may well be that if we put a prize on the table that encouraged entrepreneurs and adventurers to go do it - and develop all the technologies - that we ought to offer them a prize that would be worth their while.”

Now age 68, Gingrich’s generation came of age as America’s space program triumphed over troubled growing pains to achieve historic orbital successes during the Mercury and Gemini manned space missions.

Those who know Gingrich well say he sees space exploration in sweeping historical terms - a new frontier as important as the Old West and comparable to the building of the transcontinental railroad.

"He's not for tripling the NASA budget,” says James Muncy, longtime Gingrich adviser and friend. “He's for investing in space in a way that will open the frontier and make it possible for more and more Americans over time to go live there and work there and prosper there."

Early in Gingrich’s congressional tenure he supported increases in NASA’s budget. He supported funding for the International Space Station and worked with President Clinton to preserve funding in the 1990s.

However, now, that support for funding NASA appears to have diminished.

At a GOP debate last summer, Gingrich accused NASA's bureaucracy of wasting hundreds of billions of dollars since the 1969 moon landing. Without the waste, he said the U.S. “would probably today have a permanent station on the moon, three or four permanent stations in space, a new generation of lift vehicles." Instead, NASA has produced "failure after failure," he said.

Gingrich’s presidential rival, former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, has warmed up to space exploration as Florida’s Tuesday primary closes in.

During a December debate, some say Romney appeared to mock the former House Speaker’s support for future lunar mining colonies. "I'm not in favor of spending that kind of money to do that," Romney told Gingrich.

At Monday’s debate in Florida, Romney said space exploration “should certainly be a priority.”

Then Romney went on to blame Obama, saying his lack of “plans for NASA” have “failed miserably the people of Florida.”

He called for NASA’s mission to be determined by a president and a collection of people from NASA, Air Force, universities and commercial enterprises. Romney called for a mission that “excites our young people about the potential of space” with commercial potential” that “will pay for itself down the road.”

Space industry analyst Jeff Foust of spacepolitics.com told CNN that Romney was talking about a "centralized, in some respect, space program centered on NASA but also bringing in the military and commercial sectors to help select priorities and to help fund those programs. Gingrich is talking basically about getting rid of a lot of the NASA bureaucracy setting out some large prizes and telling the private sector, 'OK get to it.' That's a fairly strong contrast between the two."

Another GOP candidate, Rick Santorum, has been virtually silent on space issues, says Foust, although he may offer insight into his space policy views during this week's Florida campaign stops. Likewise, Ron Paul hasn't said a whole lot about it, Foust says. "His Libertarian political philosophy would suggest that he would be opposed to big government programs." But Foust says Paul has voted in Congress to support some NASA programs.

President Obama cut NASA’s Constellation program - which was aimed at returning Americans to the moon - but preserved Orion, a multi-purpose manned space vehicle designed for long distance missions.

Two years ago, Gingrich came out in support for Obama’s 2011 NASA budget in an editorial co-authored by Walker. Specifically, the two praised a proposed program to allow private companies to transport astronauts to and from the International Space Station.

NASA’s 2012 budget – $17.8 billion – is about the same as 2009’s – the final budget hammered out during the Bush administration.

http://lightyears.blogs.cnn.com/2012/01/24/gingrich-promises-jfk-like-space-speech/

[DonLever]

Uploaded with ImageShack.us

[DonLever]

I posted the above political cartoon to emphazize that Obama will be guaranteed to be re-elected if Newt Gingrich is selected as the Republican nominee.  Everyone and their dog know that there is no way Newt will be elected president.  This is apparent to almost everyone except those wacko religous fundamentalists. Their need to select a pure conservative is like cutting off their nose to spite their face.  

The selection of Gingrich means a replay of the 1964 election between Lynden Johnson and Barry Goldwater.  Barry Goldwater was considered extreme right wing and his nomimation splitted the Republican Party between moderates and the right wing.  Democrat Johnson won one of the most lop sided victory in US history. How can the Republicans win a election with a extreme right wing candidate when today's society is much more liberal than in 1964?

[Satan's Evil Twin]

I posted the above political cartoon to emphazize that Obama will be guaranteed to be re-elected if Newt Gingrich is selected as the Republican nominee.  Everyone and their dog know that there is no way Newt will be elected president.  This is apparent to almost everyone except those wacko religous fundamentalists. Their need to select a pure conservative is like cutting off their nose to spite their face.  

The selection of Gingrich means a replay of the 1964 election between Lynden Johnson and Barry Goldwater.  Barry Goldwater was considered extreme right wing and his nomimation splitted the Republican Party between moderates and the right wing.  Democrat Johnson won one of the most lop sided victory in US history. How can the Republicans win a election with a extreme right wing candidate when today's society is much more liberal than in 1964?

[unbridled_id]

None of the GOP have a chance to be elected. None. It won't matter if it's Mitt Gingtorum that gets the nomination. This is just a circus for liberals' amusement, I'm convinced of that.

[Satan's Evil Twin]

What if by a miracle a Republican does get elected ? What will you say then ?

[unbridled_id]

That I was wrong? Also, I'll pray to your god to help your country, cause your people certainly sh!t the bed.

[Duodenum]

State of the Union Address was today and a pretty good speech given by Obama.

Just looks more and more obvious that he'll be re-elected as president although crazier things have happened.

[DonLever]

<br />None of the GOP have a chance to be elected. None. It won't matter if it's Mitt Gingtorum that gets the nomination. This is just a circus for liberals' amusement, I'm convinced of that.<br />

[Gretzky's Mullet]

<br /><br /><br />

You are probably right but Milt Romney will have a better chance than all the other candidates. Most polls show there is a only a 5 point difference between Romney and Obama. The gap is considerablly higher for candidates other than Romny.

As I pointed out before, the vote often hinges on the independent voters, and they lean more to Romney. Independents or non-party affiliated voters are considered more moderate. No way they will vote for a extreme right wing candidate. Studies have shown them to be middle class, middle of the road, centerists.

[Satan's Evil Twin]

However, I wonder if in some places Romney will not interest a lot of the extreme righties, who don't distinguish much between he and Obama. Can't say I agree with that view, but it's one that's held. Mitt's tax returns are going to catch a little flak though, for a guy trying to play the "best for the common man" card, it helps not to pay more in taxes in a year than they make in a lifetime. Not to mention that it would help if the very least they saw you paying even close to the same percentage as they do. I can certainly see why Mittens didn't really want to release that so badly, because it gives his present opposition some ammunition, but it's probably got Democrat strategists ecstatic.

[unbridled_id]

Mitt is America's top 3100ish richest person, pretending to be middle class, while paying lower taxes than middle class. He's the epitome of what's wrong with America.

Once he's pitted up against Obama, any fantasy that he's in any way electable will evaporate.

[Satan's Evil Twin]

I don't know how Mitt can show his face in public.

[Satan's Evil Twin]

Castro says US Republican presidential race is competition of ‘idiocy and ignorance’

[The Situation]

I posted the above political cartoon to emphazize that Obama will be guaranteed to be re-elected if Newt Gingrich is selected as the Republican nominee. Everyone and their dog know that there is no way Newt will be elected president. This is apparent to almost everyone except those wacko religous fundamentalists. Their need to select a pure conservative is like cutting off their nose to spite their face.

The selection of Gingrich means a replay of the 1964 election between Lynden Johnson and Barry Goldwater. Barry Goldwater was considered extreme right wing and his nomimation splitted the Republican Party between moderates and the right wing. Democrat Johnson won one of the most lop sided victory in US history. How can the Republicans win a election with a extreme right wing candidate when today's society is much more liberal than in 1964?

[DonLever]

Since 1932, only Three incumbant presidents have been defeated. The unfortunate Jimmy Carter and George Bush Sr. And Gerald Ford was never elected in the first place.

So the odds in favour of Obama being re-elected is extremely high, regardless how bad/good Obama is or how bad/good the Republican candidate is. People are comfortable with people they know and Obama is a very personable fellow, regardless of his politics. Voters often vote for the man, not policy.

Franklin D. Roosevelt - 1932- 1945 - Died in Office

Harry Truman - Took over from Roosevelt - Elected in 1948

Dwight D. Eisenhower - Elected 1952, Re-elected 1956

John F. Kennedy - Elected 1960, Assassinated 1963

Lydnen B. Johnson - Took over from JFK, Elected 1964, Decided not to run for 2nd term.

Richard Nixon - Elected 1968, Re-elected 1972. Resigned 1974.

Gerald Ford - Took Over from Nixon. Defeated by Jimmy Carter.

Jimmy Carter - Elected 1976, Defeated by Ronald Reagen in 1980.

Ronald Reagen - Elected 1980, Re-Elected 1984

George Bush Sr. - Elected 1988, Defeated by Bill Clinton in 1992.

Bill Clinton - Elected 1992, Re-Elected 1996

George W. Bush - Elected 2000, Re-elected 2004

Obama - Elected 2008, Re-elected 2012?

[OrdinaryBoy]

Newt Gingrich has promised a moon base in 8 years if he's elected.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/blog/2012/jan/25/newt-gingrich-moon-base

[unbridled_id]

"LBJ had a decent approval rating, nowhere close to JFK but Obama would kill for LBJ's approval rating."

I hope Barry is as popular at the end of his first term as LBJ was in 68.

[key2thecup]

Debate tonight 5PM on CNN.

I agree with Donlever a Gingrich canidacy ensures a 2nd term for the Prez.

Gingrich and Reagan

In the 1980s, the candidate repeatedly insulted the president.

In the increasingly rough Republican campaign, no candidate has wrapped himself in the mantle of Ronald Reagan more often than Newt Gingrich. “I worked with President Reagan to change things in Washington,” “we helped defeat the Soviet empire,” and “I helped lead the effort to defeat Communism in the Congress” are typical claims by the former speaker of the House.

The claims are misleading at best. As a new member of Congress in the Reagan years — and I was an assistant secretary of state — Mr. Gingrich voted with the president regularly, but equally often spewed insulting rhetoric at Reagan, his top aides, and his policies to defeat Communism. Gingrich was voluble and certain in predicting that Reagan’s policies would fail, and in all of this he was dead wrong.

The fights over Reagan’s efforts to stop Soviet expansionism in the Third World were exceptionally bitter. The battlegrounds ranged from Angola and Grenada to Afghanistan and Central America. Reagan’s top team — William Casey at CIA, Cap Weinberger at DOD, and George Shultz at State — understood as he did that if Soviet expansionism could be dealt some tough blows, not only the Soviet empire but the USSR itself would face a political, technological, and financial challenge it could not meet. Few officials besides Ronald Reagan predicted the collapse of the Soviet Union entirely, but every one of us in positions of authority understood the importance of this struggle.

But the most bitter battleground was often in Congress. Here at home, we faced vicious criticism from Democrats— Ted Kennedy, Christopher Dodd, Jim Wright, Tip O’Neill, and many more — who used every trick in the book to stop Reagan by denying authorities and funds to these efforts. On whom did we rely up on Capitol Hill? There were many stalwarts: Henry Hyde, elected in 1974; Dick Cheney, elected in 1978, the same year as Gingrich; Dan Burton and Connie Mack, elected in 1982; and Tom DeLay, elected in 1984, were among the leaders.

But not Newt Gingrich. He voted with the caucus, but his words should be remembered, for at the height of the bitter struggle with the Democratic leadership Gingrich chose to attack . . . Reagan.

The best examples come from a famous floor statement Gingrich made on March 21, 1986. This was right in the middle of the fight over funding for the Nicaraguan contras; the money had been cut off by Congress in 1985, though Reagan got $100 million for this cause in 1986. Here is Gingrich: “Measured against the scale and momentum of the Soviet empire’s challenge, the Reagan administration has failed, is failing, and without a dramatic change in strategy will continue to fail. . . . President Reagan is clearly failing.” Why? This was due partly to “his administration’s weak policies, which are inadequate and will ultimately fail”; partly to CIA, State, and Defense, which “have no strategies to defeat the empire.” But of course “the burden of this failure frankly must be placed first on President Reagan.” Our efforts against the Communists in the Third World were “pathetically incompetent,” so those anti-Communist members of Congress who questioned the $100 million Reagan sought for the Nicaraguan “contra” rebels “are fundamentally right.” Such was Gingrich’s faith in President Reagan that in 1985, he called Reagan’s meeting with Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev “the most dangerous summit for the West since Adolf Hitler met with Neville Chamberlain in 1938 in Munich.”

Gingrich scorned Reagan’s speeches, which moved a party and then a nation, because “the president of the United States cannot discipline himself to use the correct language.” In Afghanistan, Reagan’s policy was marked by “impotence [and] incompetence.” Thus Gingrich concluded as he surveyed five years of Reagan in power that “we have been losing the struggle with the Soviet empire.” Reagan did not know what he was doing, and “it is precisely at the vision and strategy levels that the Soviet empire today is superior to the free world.”

There are two things to be said about these remarks. The first is that as a visionary, Gingrich does not have a very impressive record. The Soviet Union was beginning to collapse, just as Reagan had believed it must. The expansion of its empire had been thwarted. The policies Gingrich thought so weak and indeed “pathetic” worked, and Ronald Reagan turned out to be a far better student of history and politics than Gingrich.

The second point to make is that Gingrich made these assaults on the Reagan administration just as Democratic attacks were heating up unmercifully. Far from becoming a reliable voice for Reagan policy and the struggle against the Soviets, Gingrich took on Reagan and his administration. It appears to be a habit: He did the same to George W. Bush when Bush was making the toughest and most controversial decision of his presidency — the surge in Iraq. Bush was opposed by many of the top generals, by some Republican leaders who feared the surge would hurt in the 2008 elections, and of course by a slew of Democrats and media commentators. Here again Gingrich provided no support for his party’s embattled president, testifying as a private citizen in 2007 that the strategy was “inadequate,” contained “breathtaking” gaps, lacked “synergism” (whatever that means), and was “very disappointing.” What did Gingrich propose? Among other things, a 50 percent increase in the budget of the State Department.

Presidents should not get automatic support, not even from members of their own party, but they have a right to that support when they are under a vicious partisan assault. Today it is fair to look back and ask who had it right: Gingrich, who backed away from and criticized Republican presidents, or those chief executives, who were making difficult and consequential decisions on national security. Bush on the surge and Reagan on the Soviet empire were tough, courageous — and right. Newt Gingrich in retrospect seems less the visionary than the politician who refused the party’s leader loyal support on grounds that history has proved were simply wrong.

http://www.nationalr...ott-abrams?pg=2

William Jefferson Gingrich

How long have I been saying it? At least for 15 years, but in private I have been aware of it longer. Newt Gingrich is conservatism’s Bill Clinton, but without the charm. He has acquired wit but he has all the charm of barbed wire.

Newt and Bill are 1960s generation narcissists, and they share the same problems: waywardness and deviancy. Newt, like Bill, has a proclivity for girl hopping. It is not as egregious as Bill’s, but then Newt is not as drop-dead beautiful. His public record is already besmeared with tawdry divorces, and there are private encounters with the fair sex that doubtless will come out.

If I have heard of some, you can be sure the Democrats have heard of more. Nancy Pelosi’s intimations are timely. Newt up against the Prophet Obama would be a painful thing to watch. He might be deft with one-liners but it would be futile. There are independent and other uncommitted voters to be cultivated in 2012 — all would be unmoved by Newt’s juggling of conservative shibboleths.

Newt and Bill, as 1960s generation self-promoters, share the same duplicity, ostentatious braininess, a propensity for endless scrapes with propriety and the law. They are tireless hustlers. Now Newt is hustling my fellow conservatives in this election. The last time around he successfully hustled conservatives in the House of Representatives and then the conservatives on the House impeachment committee.

He blew the impeachment and in fact his role as Speaker. He backed out in disgrace. He now says Republicans in the House were exhausted with his great projects. Nonsense, I knew many of them, and they were exhausted with his atrocious leadership. He is not a leader. He is a huckster. Today Mitt Romney has 72 Congressional endorsements. Newt has 11. Possibly the 11 have yet to meet him.

Now he has found his key for hustling conservative electorate. He is playing the liberal media card and saying he embodies conservative values. Like Bill with his credulous fans, Newt is hoping conservatives suffer amnesia. Possibly some do. Perhaps they cannot recall mere months ago when this insufferable whiz kid was lambasting the great Congressman Paul Ryan for “right-wing social engineering” — more evidence of Newt’s not-so-hidden longing for the approval of the liberal media.

After his Ryan moment Newt’s campaign was a death wagon, and it will be so again — hopefully before he gets the nomination. Conservatives should not climb onto his death wagon. He is a huckster, and I for one will not be rendered a contortionist trying to defend him. I did so in his earliest days and learned my lesson.

After Newt’s and Bill’s disastrous experiences in government both went on to create empires, Bill in philanthropy and cheap thought, Newt in public policy and cheap thought. As an ex-president Bill has wrung up an unprecedented $75.6 million since absconding from the White House with White House loot and shameless pardons. I do not know how much Newt has amassed, but he got between $1.6 million to $1.8 million from Freddie Mac, and he lobbied for Medicare Part B while receiving, according to the Washington Examiner’s Tim Carney, “Big Bucks Pushing Corporate Welfare.” Now after a lifetime in Washington he is promoting himself as an outsider.

Contending with Newt for the Republican nomination are Ron Paul, Rick Santorum, and Mitt Romney. All three are truer conservatives than Newt. I like them all. But John Bolton, former ambassador the United Nations, and John Lehman, President Reagan’s secretary of the navy, are for Mitt, and they are solid conservatives. Governor Christie and the economic pundit Larry Kudlow laud Mitt on taxes, on spending, and on attacking crony capitalism. Mr. Kudlow calls Mr. Romney “Reaganesque.” Ann Coulter seems to loathe Newt. That is good enough for me.

Back in 1992 I appeared with Chris Matthews on some gasbag’s television show. Was it Donohue? At any rate, I said candidate Clinton had more skeletons in his closet than a body snatcher. It was a prescient line then, and I always got a laugh. I can apply the same line today to Newt, though he has skeletons both inside and outside his closet.

Conservatives should not be surprised by the scandals that lie ahead, if they stick with him. Those of us, who raised the question of character in 1992, were confronted by an indignant Bill Clinton, treating the topic as a low blow. To listen to him, character was the “c” word of American politics. It was reprehensible to mention it. By now we know. Character matters. Paul, Santorum, and Romney have it. Newt has Clinton’s character.

http://www.nysun.com...gingrich/87674/