http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/12/03/michele-bachmann-2012_n_1127382.html?ref=politics

Right off the rails, with the greatest of ease.

I must also say that some of Gingrich's treatment of his wives, like dumping one when she was severely ill in the hospital, goes beyond just affairs.

That is a great point, Carl. However, all the evil that Gingrich did in his personal life pales in comparison to what the longtime Senator from Massachusetts did at Chappaquiddick. Were he not part of the 1% that the Occupy movement loves to blast, "liberal lion" Teddy would have spent time in prison. However, he used his money and family name to get off, and was rewarded by getting to remain in Congress for the rest of his life.

In recent decades (before he died), Kennedy supporters would often say that Chappaquiddick happened a long time ago, and he already suffered enough, so we should all just forget about it. Yet these same Kennedy supporters sing a much different tune when discussing Gingrich's early-80s divorce from his first wife. Apparently, these actions must be far more evil than anything their beloved Teddy did, and can never be forgotten. Furthermore, Gingrich is not even morally fit enough to serve as dog catcher.

Edited December 5, 201114 yr by Max

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/12/03/newt-gingrich-ron-paul_n_1127371.html?ref=politics

These are some truly awful Republicans. I laugh not only at them, but the entire party. They are destroying themselves right in front of my eyes, and I hope that is what it takes to leave these Tea Party folks and ultra right-wing people far behind.

These are some truly awful Republicans. I laugh not only at them, but the entire party. They are destroying themselves right in front of my eyes, and I hope that is what it takes to leave these Tea Party folks and ultra right-wing people far behind.

Fortunately, the Democrats are in great shape, since they can all point with pride at their excellent leader.

I'm not sure how many of those who don't like Gingrich are Ted Kennedy supporters.

They should have a World's Dumbest Politicians on TruTV. But, the majority of the hour would be taken up with Republicans.

I'm not sure how many of those who don't like Gingrich are Ted Kennedy supporters.

I don't think Ron Paul supporters are Newt supporters.

http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2011/12/04/381510/upton-cant-explain-tax-cuts-jobs/

From one of the few Republicans who talks the truth.

http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2011/12/02/381058/boehner-payroll-tax-chicken-[!@#$%^&*]/

Boehner once again shows where his thoughts lay.

http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2011/12/01/380148/john-danforth-slams-gop-field/

From a home state Republican.

Ron Paul, Jon Huntsman Refuse To Attend Donald Trump’s Debate: It’s ‘beneath the office of the presidency’ | In what’s been characterized as “the clown hosting the circus,” business mogul and media hound Donald Trump will moderate Newsmax’s GOP presidential debate this month. Current front runner Newt Gingrich happily accepted Trump’s invitation, but candidates Jon Huntsman and Ron Paul are declining to participate because they question the seriousness of the event. “The selection of a reality television personality to host a presidential debate that voters nationwide will be watching is beneath the office of the Presidency and flies in the face of that office’s history and dignity,” Paul’s campaign said, adding, “To be sure, Mr. Trump’s participation will contribute to an unwanted circus-like atmosphere.” Trump naturally returned fire: “Few people take Ron Paul seriously and many of his views and presentation make him a clown-like candidate…I am glad he and Jon Huntsman, who has inconsequential poll numbers or a chance of winning, will not be attending the debate and wasting the time of the viewers who are trying very hard to make a very important decision.”

Muslims compared to cockroaches at St. Louis ACT! for America event | St. Louis Post-Dispatch’s Tim Townsend attended an anti-Muslim event hosted by ACT! for America this week where he witnessed the following remark. “They’re everywhere,” one woman in the audience whispered to her friend. “They’re like cockroaches.” Townsend concludes, “Unfortunately for American Muslims, we are about to enter a presidential election year, during which groups like ACT! for America and the Clarion Fund have historically spread anti-Islam messages that promote fear of ‘the other.’” As we explained in Fear, Inc., the hate group ACT!, founded by Islamophobe Brigitte Gabriel, has a budget of nearly $1 million and comprises over 550 chapters and 170,000 members worldwide.

I apologize if this sounds heartless and offends others, but I wanted to also say something controversial in regards to JFK and Reagan: I feel that emotion is a big reason why the public at large (and not just partisans) have such favorable views of them. Because of the terrible tragedies that occurred at the end of their lives--assassination and Alzheimer's--many people are naturally more inclined to overlook their flaws and exaggerate their qualities (as is human nature). An additional reason why they remain so beloved is becuase they were such great speakers. (It's important that one mourns for both these men and their families, but nobody should let objectivity be overruled by emotion when judging their presidencies or their quality as human beings.)

This is no joke, but whenever Americans rank all the presidents, Washington, Lincoln, FDR, JFK, Reagan, and Clinton (listed in chronological order) almost always rate among the top six. (Clinton obviously did not suffer a personal tragedy, but is highly regarded because he's recent and because his two successors were so incompetent. I feel Clinton is also very over-rated because he failed to anticipate a second attack on the World Trade Center and because the "sizzling" economy of the 90s was largely based on accounting fraud.) The fact that John Q. Public puts JFK, Reagan, and Clinton on the same pedestal as Washington, Lincoln, and FDR is a damning indictment on the education level of our society and shows that many Americans have a complete ignorance of history.

I don't think it sounds heartless... it's true. You see it all the time in the music business, if someone dies young before their time in a tragic way (Like JFK did) then they are cannonized and put up on a pedestal. If Janis Joplin had died in 1985 after she hadn't had a hit record in 10 years, she would have just been a news blurb, and not this "legend". When I said what I did about marital infidelity, I didn't mean that it didn't matter at all, I just meant that positions on policy always trump the marital infidelity. Primarily because we on the outside don't know precisely what goes on in the privacy of a marriage, heck, for all we know, Eleanor Roosevelt could have been a lesbian, and her and Franklin could have had an "understanding". If that WERE true, we certainly would never have known it. Now, a man leaving a wife because she is ill or dying, then to me, that's a diffeent story. That's a dealbreaker for me.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/12/05/mitt-romney-media-nyt_n_1129097.html?ref=media

Don't know how one thinks they would be POTUS by not speaking to the media, and when they do, spend their time acting like an ass.

I don't think it sounds heartless... it's true. You see it all the time in the music business, if someone dies young before their time in a tragic way (Like JFK did) then they are cannonized and put up on a pedestal. If Janis Joplin had died in 1985 after she hadn't had a hit record in 10 years, she would have just been a news blurb, and not this "legend". When I said what I did about marital infidelity, I didn't mean that it didn't matter at all, I just meant that positions on policy always trump the marital infidelity. Primarily because we on the outside don't know precisely what goes on in the privacy of a marriage, heck, for all we know, Eleanor Roosevelt could have been a lesbian, and her and Franklin could have had an "understanding". If that WERE true, we certainly would never have known it. Now, a man leaving a wife because she is ill or dying, then to me, that's a diffeent story. That's a dealbreaker for me.

Alphanguy, thanks for clarifying your position on infidelity. I sincerly apologize if I misrepresented your views in any way.

I really appreciate your kind words regarding my thoughts on how emotion (largely) resulted in the JFK/Reagan worship. While we disagree on political matters, I greatly admire the fact that you judge politicans objectively.

Edited December 5, 201114 yr by Max

What gets me about everything with lionizing Democrats who cheat is that the top hate figures for Republicans are Nancy Pelosi, Barack Obama, and Jimmy Carter, none of whom have ever cheated (unless you count "lusting in [his] heart"), and who are in many ways ideal pictures of marriage and family.

So according to Newt, Trump is Ronald Reagan??

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1211/69792.html

What gets me about everything with lionizing Democrats who cheat is that the top hate figures for Republicans are Nancy Pelosi, Barack Obama, and Jimmy Carter, none of whom have ever cheated (unless you count "lusting in [his] heart"), and who are in many ways ideal pictures of marriage and family.

That when those same people will go back to Ted Kennedy's past or bring up Robert Byrd and the Klan.

Then those people will demand that I or others keep it fair while they say things that add nothing to the discussion. I have made comments about Dems and Republicans, and guess what? i will continue to call it the way I see it. But, I can bend or change my mind if the counter-point is strong enough. I am not, though, going to play silly games with people whose mind set is so closed off, they think they are right all the time, and that anyone who disagrees with them is some kind of partisan idiot.

Some clown on FN said that The Muppets were Communists?!

What gets me about everything with lionizing Democrats who cheat is that the top hate figures for Republicans are Nancy Pelosi, Barack Obama, and Jimmy Carter, none of whom have ever cheated (unless you count "lusting in [his] heart"), and who are in many ways ideal pictures of marriage and family.

Just becuase people have sterling personal lives doesn't mean they can't be criticized. (I don't recall Democrats ever limiting their criticism to social-values hypocrites.) If people disagree with Pelosi's viewpoints, or think that Carter and Obama are incompetent, then they have a right to express their dissatisfaction (much like liberals have the right to reject conservatives who lead perfect personal lives).

I am not, though, going to play silly games with people whose mind set is so closed off, they think they are right all the time, and that anyone who disagrees with them is some kind of partisan idiot.

This is coming from somebody who is a bellwether of independence and non-partisanship. Seriously though, I am surprised you believe that I think I am right all the time, given that you previously trashed me for being wishy-washy.

Edited December 6, 201114 yr by Max