Conserving, celebrating, and contributing to the excellence that is Western Civilization.
Friday, January 20, 2012
Rallying The Hobbits
Whether you like him or not, Newt throws a mean right punch!
Knock out. King, and by extension the hyper-partisan media, have been publicly humiliated. It's about time someone had the guts to stand up to these weasels.
Wow, that was great. I was seriously LMAO through the whole thing. It's refreshing to see one of the GOP candidates taking control of the situation. I woefully have not been able to keep up with the debate, so please correct me if I'm wrong in that respect. It just seems to me like they've been putty to the media. Please let's not have another 2008.
BTW, the look on King's face was priceless. "Well... uhh... it wasn't our story, we're just-" What a weasel.
Pam Geller said about this video: "Gingrich wins debate in first five minutes." Weasel Zippers said: "Next nukes CNN's John King."
Maybe I am being overly optimistic, but it seems as though the MSM has gone to the well one (one? How 'bout a few thousand) time(s) too often. I think King was probably expecting Gingrich's response, but I don't think he was expecting Gingrich to get the standing O that he did. The media ought to realize by now that whenever they attack someone as they are in this case, the American people are starting to believe that the person being attacked must be doing something right.
If the media only went after Obama they was they go after Republicans, then we might have President (H.) Clinton. Sad to say, but that would have been a much better situation.
Well, dangit, I missed another Newt moment. I love him taking the media to task and bringing up the double standard in handling Obama as opposed to the repubs.
Our power was out all day yesterday and we didn't get tv or computer back until tonight.
Bad ice storm, ugh. We're due for heavy winds tonight so this time we're a little more prepared if we lose power. Boy, am I ever ready for spring!
Hang in there flo! Glad the power came back on without too much delay.
We got some snow Tuesday night - nothing real bad but any slickness on the road and Portland comes to a complete standstill.
I have 4runner + studded snow tires + New England driving experience => I ended up driving friends around Tuesday night because the busses weren't running and taxis were leaving people waiting for hours.
That said, my cynicism with respect to his candidacy is pretty much unbounded. My opinion is that he pretty much hit Romney with the same level of BS that CNN hit him with. A "have you no decency?" moment from someone, however satisfying, is less so when they have precious little themselves.
I was really hoping someone would provide an alternative to Mitt Romney. I'm disappointed but if Gingrich (and Perry... and Huntsman...) are going to run ads attacking Romney for being a (* gasp *) capitalist (and not entirely fair and balanced ads at that) - embracing the rhetoric of the left - well... what the hell, people?
I yield to nobody for my contempt for the financial class - but IMHO private equity (and its close cousin, venture capital) are not part of the financial class. This is a distinction which is admittedly might seem awful contrived to folks unfamiliar with the practices. I expect I'll have some explaining to do. But the bottom line is that what Romney did at Bain was much closer to what I currently do (albeit on a substantially smaller scale) than it is to what Jamie Dimon at JPM or Blankfein at Goldman or Corzine at MF Global or any of those clowns and looters do.
At the end of the day I don't expect Romney to seriously change this situation either, which tempers my enthusiasm for him. [Ironically for the Left economic brain trust - such as it is - Krugman, Joseph Stiglitz, Jeffrey Sachs, et al - their best bet to clean house with Wall St was John McCain, who probably would have nationalized Citi and BoA and let Morgan Stanley go bust, and gone all RICO on Mozilo and put his ass in jail.]
Oh... forgot to add: the distinction I make above between private equity and the bank(st)er class is also admittedly self serving.
I would of course see them differently because I'm in a business similar to what Romney does. (I could make further distinctions between venture capital and private equity but VC is properly a subset of PE, and venture folks step in and fire people too when necessary).
I believe that many conservatives are, for the moment, rallying behind Newtie for two reasons: (1) the certainty that Romney was "pre-selected" by the R establishment to be the nominee rankles voters in a BIG way, and (2) he's the only man on the stage who fights back against the utter idiocy that we face. Like Fay said: "ballsyness".
Personally, I have no problem with Romney's business decisions at Bain. Business is business. I also have no problem with his tax rate. Additionally, I have no desire to see his financials when Obama will not even release his college transcript.
Honestly, I'm not happy with any of the current crop of candidates, but I'm cheering on the battle. It's a way for conservatives to be heard (by cheering/booing at the debates, if nothing else). Maybe Romney is getting the message, maybe he's not. I think South Carolina may hit him upside his pointy little head with a two-by-four today.
Lady Red, you #1 is a big thing with me. I remember the district caucus I was at in 1996 when the district Dole campaign guy pretty much told us we had to go for Dole because, well, we had to go for Dole.
As for #2, I think that is what we need right now. I think lack of action on other things would be a good thing -- but butchering sacred cows is a high priority with me.
Government is doing too much, and that is what is causing the problems -- not that it is doing enough. Perhaps I should say it is doing too much where it shouldn't and not enough where it should.
We all need to remember, however, that whomever a Republican candidate may be, he or she is going to be damaged goods by the time the media gets through. They see their jobs as destroying Republicans, so do not expect anyone to come through unscathed.
I have read comments on other blogs that said that Gingrich was wrong for responding the way he did and that he should have spent the time apologizing to his ex-wife for asking for an open marriage. Others had to point out that Gingrich denied the story. He said it was not true. Some people, however, feel that Republicans should spend their time apologizing for accusations they claim are false. But to be a Republican is to be presumed guilty until declared guilty -- proof need not apply.
I'm not a fan of the current crop of candidates, either. They all turn my stomach for one reason or another, although the horror inspired by the current regime isn't reached by anyone.
However, I'm so disillusioned by everything - the politicians themselves and the American public that seems to be singing the Gimme Gimme Chorus while complaining about the people in charge that they refuse to vote out - that I can't really summon much enthusiasm for any of it.
Matt, I too think Newt responded perfectly! He annihilated that lily-livered nincompoop King. The left is totally out of control; their mantra has surpassed the ridiculous mark. It's beyond zany, and as a people, we shouldn't stand for it.
And while we're on the subject...Newt's ex is an embarrassment to all women, IMHO. Sure, he was a heel. Whose ex wasn't? I have two exes that make Newt look like a saint, but I'd never share that with the general public. Why is she trumpeting her own bad judgment, and dragging her daughters through the mud with the intimate details of her failed marriage? Bah.
I've heard countless talking heads breathlessly declare that Newt won't carry the female vote because he's a cad. What do you guys think?
A bit of introspection: why am I casually dismissing Newt's flings, but yet I'd gladly gouge out the eyes of John Edwards or Mark Sanford? Hmmm...I'll have to ponder that one...
I'll go for three and agree with Matt as well. We're watching the Journal Editorial Report and their comments are ridiculous.
I think these beltway elites stay up at night thinking up a new slant on the slate of candidates. The black guy even said "why is Gingrich considered a good debater?"
Lady Red, perhaps the reason you would gouge the eyes out of Edwards and Sanford are because they shirked other duties while they were out fooling around. Edwards also has the fact that while his affair, while his wife had cancer, was known but not covered by the MSM -- and, because it was not covered, the MSM uses that as how corrupt Republicans are because there were no MSM reports on such activities by Democrats for years.
Why is it that in the case of Bill Clinton, his sex life is nobody else's business -- even if he lies under oath to cover it up -- but Gingrich's sex life of twelve years ago is of prime importance.
It is funny that, when Democrats are concerned, anything is permissible as long as it is between two consenting adults, but it is wrong for a Republican to even bring up the question. How can a second adult consent if the question is not asked?
Was it right for Gingrich to have an affair? No. But it was no more wrong for Gingrich to have affairs than it was for Clinton to have affairs, for the Kennedys to have affairs, for FDR to have an affair, etc.
Also, Sanford and Edwards are current news, Gingrich's stuff is past history and has been dredged up many times.
I'm more concerned about his mood swings - from gregarious, good debater Newt to vengeful mud-slinging Newt. In that respect he reminds me of Nixon with his enemies list. I'd much prefer a president who can just shrug off criticism and nasty innuendo.
A friend at school, who is 18, said she would never be interested in someone more than four years older than her. That would exclude my son. Not that I am trying to fix them up (he is happily married), but it is sobering when your child would be classified as an "older man."
Good for Newt! I had not seen the whole scene before, just the initial sentences.
I think the point here is less Gingrich's philandering, and more the utter hypocrisy of the national media.
As many have noted above, the media turned a blind eye (at least) or helped to cover up (at worst) the sleazy sexual shenanigans of (any) Democrat who strayed, no matter how egregious, while highlighting any transgression by any GOP'er.
I'm happy to vote for Newt if he ends up being the nominee.
I'm a little nervous about him, though; he's the typical DC insider, has lots of baggage and sure, he's a great debater...but can he beat Obama? I don't know.
My candidates didn't even run, Matt :-) You know better than most that by time it rolls around to our state, it's already been decided for us.
I just want whoever can beat BO. I laugh at the talking heads for the most part, they are so out of touch with what the average person is thinking about and wanting in a candidate. I just meant that Newt has more baggage than most for the other side to exploit.
Actually, I thought his victory speech tonight was very good and a smart move.
Drudge invariably picks the most unflattering pictures of political people. Of course, Newt isn't all that hawt to begin with; he actually makes me think of a character from The Hobbit. Anyhow, check out the latest Newtie picture on Drudge and see if these two aren't Separated at Birth.
I dunno, I just can't get my head around a POTUS whose first name is Newt or Mitt. I mean it's laughable really, neither name has any gravitas. Not like John or Richard or Ronald or Abraham or George or James.
Florrie, I may catch a few minutes of it; I have to be up very early in the AM, and I'm already yawning. I need my beauty sleep! It's not easy being 29 at my age! ;)
Wow, that was great. I was seriously LMAO through the whole thing. It's refreshing to see one of the GOP candidates taking control of the situation. I woefully have not been able to keep up with the debate, so please correct me if I'm wrong in that respect. It just seems to me like they've been putty to the media. Please let's not have another 2008.
ReplyDeleteBTW, the look on King's face was priceless. "Well... uhh... it wasn't our story, we're just-"
What a weasel.
Pam Geller said about this video: "Gingrich wins debate in first five minutes." Weasel Zippers said: "Next nukes CNN's John King."
ReplyDeleteMaybe I am being overly optimistic, but it seems as though the MSM has gone to the well one (one? How 'bout a few thousand) time(s) too often. I think King was probably expecting Gingrich's response, but I don't think he was expecting Gingrich to get the standing O that he did. The media ought to realize by now that whenever they attack someone as they are in this case, the American people are starting to believe that the person being attacked must be doing something right.
If the media only went after Obama they was they go after Republicans, then we might have President (H.) Clinton. Sad to say, but that would have been a much better situation.
Holy crapola! That was almost Churchillian in it's take no prisoners, tell it like it is, ballsyness.
ReplyDeleteBoy, what a refreshing change he is.
or should that be Churchillean???
DeleteWell, dangit, I missed another Newt moment. I love him taking the media to task and bringing up the double standard in handling Obama as opposed to the repubs.
ReplyDeleteOur power was out all day yesterday and we didn't get tv or computer back until tonight.
Bad ice storm, ugh. We're due for heavy winds tonight so this time we're a little more prepared if we lose power. Boy, am I ever ready for spring!
Hang in there flo! Glad the power came back on without too much delay.
DeleteWe got some snow Tuesday night - nothing real bad but any slickness on the road and Portland comes to a complete standstill.
I have 4runner + studded snow tires + New England driving experience => I ended up driving friends around Tuesday night because the busses weren't running and taxis were leaving people waiting for hours.
I'm happy Newt had the gumption to call CNN out.
ReplyDeleteThat said, my cynicism with respect to his candidacy is pretty much unbounded. My opinion is that he pretty much hit Romney with the same level of BS that CNN hit him with. A "have you no decency?" moment from someone, however satisfying, is less so when they have precious little themselves.
I was really hoping someone would provide an alternative to Mitt Romney. I'm disappointed but if Gingrich (and Perry... and Huntsman...) are going to run ads attacking Romney for being a (* gasp *) capitalist (and not entirely fair and balanced ads at that) - embracing the rhetoric of the left - well... what the hell, people?
I yield to nobody for my contempt for the financial class - but IMHO private equity (and its close cousin, venture capital) are not part of the financial class. This is a distinction which is admittedly might seem awful contrived to folks unfamiliar with the practices. I expect I'll have some explaining to do. But the bottom line is that what Romney did at Bain was much closer to what I currently do (albeit on a substantially smaller scale) than it is to what Jamie Dimon at JPM or Blankfein at Goldman or Corzine at MF Global or any of those clowns and looters do.
At the end of the day I don't expect Romney to seriously change this situation either, which tempers my enthusiasm for him. [Ironically for the Left economic brain trust - such as it is - Krugman, Joseph Stiglitz, Jeffrey Sachs, et al - their best bet to clean house with Wall St was John McCain, who probably would have nationalized Citi and BoA and let Morgan Stanley go bust, and gone all RICO on Mozilo and put his ass in jail.]
Oh... forgot to add: the distinction I make above between private equity and the bank(st)er class is also admittedly self serving.
DeleteI would of course see them differently because I'm in a business similar to what Romney does. (I could make further distinctions between venture capital and private equity but VC is properly a subset of PE, and venture folks step in and fire people too when necessary).
Good analysis, lewy.
DeleteI believe that many conservatives are, for the moment, rallying behind Newtie for two reasons: (1) the certainty that Romney was "pre-selected" by the R establishment to be the nominee rankles voters in a BIG way, and (2) he's the only man on the stage who fights back against the utter idiocy that we face. Like Fay said: "ballsyness".
ReplyDeletePersonally, I have no problem with Romney's business decisions at Bain. Business is business. I also have no problem with his tax rate. Additionally, I have no desire to see his financials when Obama will not even release his college transcript.
Honestly, I'm not happy with any of the current crop of candidates, but I'm cheering on the battle. It's a way for conservatives to be heard (by cheering/booing at the debates, if nothing else). Maybe Romney is getting the message, maybe he's not. I think South Carolina may hit him upside his pointy little head with a two-by-four today.
Lady Red, you #1 is a big thing with me. I remember the district caucus I was at in 1996 when the district Dole campaign guy pretty much told us we had to go for Dole because, well, we had to go for Dole.
DeleteAs for #2, I think that is what we need right now. I think lack of action on other things would be a good thing -- but butchering sacred cows is a high priority with me.
Government is doing too much, and that is what is causing the problems -- not that it is doing enough. Perhaps I should say it is doing too much where it shouldn't and not enough where it should.
We all need to remember, however, that whomever a Republican candidate may be, he or she is going to be damaged goods by the time the media gets through. They see their jobs as destroying Republicans, so do not expect anyone to come through unscathed.
I have read comments on other blogs that said that Gingrich was wrong for responding the way he did and that he should have spent the time apologizing to his ex-wife for asking for an open marriage. Others had to point out that Gingrich denied the story. He said it was not true. Some people, however, feel that Republicans should spend their time apologizing for accusations they claim are false. But to be a Republican is to be presumed guilty until declared guilty -- proof need not apply.
DeleteThat is the mindset of the country.
Also good analysis, lady red.
DeleteI'm not a fan of the current crop of candidates, either. They all turn my stomach for one reason or another, although the horror inspired by the current regime isn't reached by anyone.
DeleteHowever, I'm so disillusioned by everything - the politicians themselves and the American public that seems to be singing the Gimme Gimme Chorus while complaining about the people in charge that they refuse to vote out - that I can't really summon much enthusiasm for any of it.
Blasphemy, I know.
Matt, I too think Newt responded perfectly! He annihilated that lily-livered nincompoop King. The left is totally out of control; their mantra has surpassed the ridiculous mark. It's beyond zany, and as a people, we shouldn't stand for it.
ReplyDeleteAnd while we're on the subject...Newt's ex is an embarrassment to all women, IMHO. Sure, he was a heel. Whose ex wasn't? I have two exes that make Newt look like a saint, but I'd never share that with the general public. Why is she trumpeting her own bad judgment, and dragging her daughters through the mud with the intimate details of her failed marriage? Bah.
I've heard countless talking heads breathlessly declare that Newt won't carry the female vote because he's a cad. What do you guys think?
A bit of introspection: why am I casually dismissing Newt's flings, but yet I'd gladly gouge out the eyes of John Edwards or Mark Sanford? Hmmm...I'll have to ponder that one...
I'll go for three and agree with Matt as well. We're watching the Journal Editorial Report and their comments are ridiculous.
ReplyDeleteI think these beltway elites stay up at night thinking up a new slant on the slate of candidates. The black guy even said "why is Gingrich considered a good debater?"
LMFAO
"lily-livered nincompoop King"
ReplyDeletebwaahaaahahahhaaahaaha
Lady Red, perhaps the reason you would gouge the eyes out of Edwards and Sanford are because they shirked other duties while they were out fooling around. Edwards also has the fact that while his affair, while his wife had cancer, was known but not covered by the MSM -- and, because it was not covered, the MSM uses that as how corrupt Republicans are because there were no MSM reports on such activities by Democrats for years.
ReplyDeleteWhy is it that in the case of Bill Clinton, his sex life is nobody else's business -- even if he lies under oath to cover it up -- but Gingrich's sex life of twelve years ago is of prime importance.
It is funny that, when Democrats are concerned, anything is permissible as long as it is between two consenting adults, but it is wrong for a Republican to even bring up the question. How can a second adult consent if the question is not asked?
Was it right for Gingrich to have an affair? No. But it was no more wrong for Gingrich to have affairs than it was for Clinton to have affairs, for the Kennedys to have affairs, for FDR to have an affair, etc.
Also, Sanford and Edwards are current news, Gingrich's stuff is past history and has been dredged up many times.
ReplyDeleteI'm more concerned about his mood swings - from gregarious, good debater Newt to vengeful mud-slinging Newt. In that respect he reminds me of Nixon with his enemies list. I'd much prefer a president who can just shrug off criticism and nasty innuendo.
The mood swings thing really bothers me, as well.
DeleteI smiled seeing your old avatar, afw! My, how afk has grown, eh?
DeleteHe turned nine when we were on Oahu! Next year, I'll have no more kids in the single age digits.
DeleteI should be sad at the passing of an era, but instead I'm giddy that we're that much closer to empty nest. :)
A friend at school, who is 18, said she would never be interested in someone more than four years older than her. That would exclude my son. Not that I am trying to fix them up (he is happily married), but it is sobering when your child would be classified as an "older man."
DeleteOuch.
Yeah, ouch!
DeleteBut you'll always be a youthful 39 to us, Matt :-)
Good for Newt! I had not seen the whole scene before, just the initial sentences.
ReplyDeleteI think the point here is less Gingrich's philandering, and more the utter hypocrisy of the national media.
As many have noted above, the media turned a blind eye (at least) or helped to cover up (at worst) the sleazy sexual shenanigans of (any) Democrat who strayed, no matter how egregious, while highlighting any transgression by any GOP'er.
I'm happy to vote for Newt if he ends up being the nominee.
ReplyDeleteI'm a little nervous about him, though; he's the typical DC insider, has lots of baggage and sure, he's a great debater...but can he beat Obama? I don't know.
Other than a Democrat who is given a free pass, who doesn't have baggage?
DeleteDo not, don NOT allow the MSM to decide our candidate.
My candidates didn't even run, Matt :-) You know better than most that by time it rolls around to our state, it's already been decided for us.
ReplyDeleteI just want whoever can beat BO. I laugh at the talking heads for the most part, they are so out of touch with what the average person is thinking about and wanting in a candidate. I just meant that Newt has more baggage than most for the other side to exploit.
Actually, I thought his victory speech tonight was very good and a smart move.
According to an article I read, the presidentail candidate with the deepest voice always wins. If Newt is the R candidate he is a sure loser.
ReplyDeleteSlow to the party, but GO NEWT!
ReplyDeleteEither going to end up with a bomb-thrower, or the guy who lost to the guy who lost to the President.
I'll hold my nose, but I'll need a shower after voting for Mitt.
Drudge invariably picks the most unflattering pictures of political people. Of course, Newt isn't all that hawt to begin with; he actually makes me think of a character from The Hobbit. Anyhow, check out the latest Newtie picture on Drudge and see if these two aren't Separated at Birth.
ReplyDeleteimg:"http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y117/floranista/newtie.jpg"
img:"http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y117/floranista/emoticons/aridogsnewest.gif"
LOL! I want to see the animated Newt gif!
DeleteI only wish I knew how to do that, lewy :-)
DeleteLMAO! Perfect florrie! :)
DeleteI dunno, I just can't get my head around a POTUS whose first name is Newt or Mitt. I mean it's laughable really, neither name has any gravitas. Not like John or Richard or Ronald or Abraham or George or James.
ReplyDeleteOr Obama...err, okay, nevermind.
I dunno Fay. "Barack" is a pretty cool name. I'd totally vote for a guy named "Barack". If it weren't for, you know... the guy...
DeleteIf it's Barack, fix it.
DeleteOr Dwight or Franklin. Or Jimmah! ;)
DeleteIf it's Barack, fix it.
Oof. /Groaning and laughing at the same time.
There's always B. A. Baracus.
DeleteWho else thinks it's time to draft Chris Christie, Allen West, Paul Ryan or Marco Rubio...
ReplyDeleteAll 4 of the current candidates leave so much to be desired.
lady red, are you going to watch tonight's debate?
ReplyDeleteFlorrie, I may catch a few minutes of it; I have to be up very early in the AM, and I'm already yawning. I need my beauty sleep! It's not easy being 29 at my age! ;)
DeleteLMAO!
DeleteI hear ya! :)
ReplyDeleteSistah! :)
Delete