I think alfred was talking about the gay-vet clip
― iatee, Tuesday, 13 December 2011 15:53 (twelve years ago) link
yes
― Lord Sotosyn, Tuesday, 13 December 2011 15:53 (twelve years ago) link
Mittens comes off decently; he answered the question without her eyes crossing, as Bachmann did when that kid programmed by lesbian parents questioned her.
― Lord Sotosyn, Tuesday, 13 December 2011 15:54 (twelve years ago) link
*HIS eyes crossing, heh
Oops--I meant the one just above.
― clemenza, Tuesday, 13 December 2011 15:55 (twelve years ago) link
without her eyes crossing, as Bachmann did when that kid programmed by lesbian parents questioned her.
her eyes weren't crossing. they were summoning a righeous blast of hellfire from the lord.
― Daniel, Esq., Tuesday, 13 December 2011 15:56 (twelve years ago) link
and now for a funny little story about Mittens' dad:http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-jR1D9gmHyL8/TuepsEKfc2I/AAAAAAAAAO4/I9LGdawDEbU/s1600/GroganRomneyNYT.jpg
― Shakey Mo Collier, Tuesday, 13 December 2011 19:51 (twelve years ago) link
Man, bring back the days when Republican presidential candidates actively campaigned in San Francisco.
― Pleasant Plains, Tuesday, 13 December 2011 19:57 (twelve years ago) link
"articulation is a key identifier of intelligence (esp to me)."
?? i don't get this, its an identifier of a certain kind of intelligence but certainly a very limited one
― joey joe joe junior shabadoo, Tuesday, 13 December 2011 19:58 (twelve years ago) link
http://nymag.com/daily/intel/2011/12/un-newtening.html
:/
― iatee, Tuesday, 13 December 2011 20:44 (twelve years ago) link
that poll detail is terrific. his boom was so fast it didn't even happen
― slandblox goole, Tuesday, 13 December 2011 20:46 (twelve years ago) link
Trump debate off; my condolences to you all.
― Dr Morbius, Tuesday, 13 December 2011 21:25 (twelve years ago) link
If they give up on Newt before he even has a chance to engineer a spectacular flame-out, I will be very angry. (Honest to god--what do these people want!?)
― clemenza, Tuesday, 13 December 2011 21:26 (twelve years ago) link
was honestly hoping Newt would get to spout a few more totally insane things before shrinking back into ignominy
― Shakey Mo Collier, Tuesday, 13 December 2011 21:31 (twelve years ago) link
newt will always spout totally insane things; you may just have to work harder to hear about them
― mookieproof, Tuesday, 13 December 2011 21:37 (twelve years ago) link
Back to point #2 on a list I posted of reasons why I wanted Newt to win: the sheer boredom of an Obama-Romney campaign.
― clemenza, Tuesday, 13 December 2011 21:39 (twelve years ago) link
boredom with a fraudulent choice helps the 99%, not that you in the Great White North need care.
― Dr Morbius, Tuesday, 13 December 2011 21:43 (twelve years ago) link
We don't have rich and poor people here--just a Tim Horton's on every corner.
― clemenza, Tuesday, 13 December 2011 21:44 (twelve years ago) link
canada just backed out of kyoto! the circus headed north too i guess
― slandblox goole, Tuesday, 13 December 2011 21:47 (twelve years ago) link
man and just after Gingrich secured the coveted Giuliani endorsement
xp
― Shakey Mo Collier, Tuesday, 13 December 2011 21:52 (twelve years ago) link
This staple remover has emerged as the newest Republican frontrunner. It's fiercely anti-mandate, a proven job creator, and (surprisingly) has just received Rick Perry's endorsement.
http://www.mozenamedical.com/images/25-716.jpg
― clemenza, Tuesday, 13 December 2011 22:03 (twelve years ago) link
No it ain't not.
― Daniel, Esq., Tuesday, 13 December 2011 22:13 (twelve years ago) link
very sad to see the gingrich boomlet dying out.
― Daniel, Esq., Wednesday, 14 December 2011 20:58 (twelve years ago) link
RIP Newt, we'll always have the first week of December, 2011
― Shakey Mo Collier, Wednesday, 14 December 2011 21:04 (twelve years ago) link
f---g a.
― Daniel, Esq., Wednesday, 14 December 2011 21:06 (twelve years ago) link
so, it's romney?
PROGRESSIVE ROMNEY?
FLIP/FLOP MITT/ROM?
― Daniel, Esq., Wednesday, 14 December 2011 21:07 (twelve years ago) link
George Will column on Gingrich sure is ... something
― Shakey Mo Collier, Wednesday, 14 December 2011 21:09 (twelve years ago) link
ron paul picked up a key gay-beardo-limey endorsement today
― mookieproof, Wednesday, 14 December 2011 21:09 (twelve years ago) link
ron paul boomlet next.
― Daniel, Esq., Wednesday, 14 December 2011 21:12 (twelve years ago) link
why did newtmania die? did america remember who he is?
― big popppa hoy, Wednesday, 14 December 2011 21:17 (twelve years ago) link
If there's any un-Newtening, it's marginal (margarine/shortening, etc.). That poll had fewer than 300 respondents, and is probably worthless.
― C.K. Dexter Holland, Wednesday, 14 December 2011 21:20 (twelve years ago) link
relentless drumbeat of negativity from pundits/press probably didn't help but who knows
― Shakey Mo Collier, Wednesday, 14 December 2011 21:21 (twelve years ago) link
seems pretty clear the GOP "establishment" made the call to flex some media muscle against li'l Newtie
From the NY mag article linked above:
Ron Paul has decided, for reasons known only to Ron Paul, to unleash his moneybomb in the form of a brutal advertising assault on Gingrich, also in Iowa.
It's clear to me that Paul expects to become the next anti-Mitt darling and hopes to veer the stampede towards himself at the strategic moment, just before the caucuses and several days before Iowans experience their fifth or sixth case of buyer's remorse.
― Aimless, Wednesday, 14 December 2011 21:22 (twelve years ago) link
yep yep
― Shakey Mo Collier, Wednesday, 14 December 2011 21:24 (twelve years ago) link
kinda doubt that's gonna work tho
I can see why Ron Paul would think that though, because the rise of Cain and Gingrich have been improbable.
― Nicole, Wednesday, 14 December 2011 21:27 (twelve years ago) link
can't imagine why any evangelical would give Paul the time of day
― Shakey Mo Collier, Wednesday, 14 December 2011 21:30 (twelve years ago) link
Because he is not Mitt. Nor is he Santorum, Bachmann, Perry, Cain, or Newt. Oh, and he's not a mormon.
― Aimless, Wednesday, 14 December 2011 21:33 (twelve years ago) link
Paul's chock full of the non-gredients voters are yearning for.
― Aimless, Wednesday, 14 December 2011 21:34 (twelve years ago) link
evangelicals need more specific commitments tho, like "hates sex/homos"
― Shakey Mo Collier, Wednesday, 14 December 2011 21:36 (twelve years ago) link
reasons known to a lot of people! ron paul has hated newt gingrich ever since newt campaigned for a democrat-turned-republican against paul in the 90s. newt had these crazy dreams about a permanent GOP majority (led by him) and wanted to signal to democrats that he'd protect them if they switched party-affiliations. this one did, and ran against ron paul, so newt felt compelled to support him. ron paul was not happy. not happy. and now is the moment of revenge that Mister Mxyzptlk was waited for.
― Daniel, Esq., Wednesday, 14 December 2011 21:38 (twelve years ago) link
-Paul is rabidly pro-life, and most likely isn't above signing some kind of fucknut "pledge" proving it
-also thinks there's no basis for a "rigid separation between church and state" in the Constitution or the writings of the founders.
-and at one of the earlier debates he intimated that churches should provide health care (haha what?), like in the good ol days
-he doesn't have mistresses and ex-wives
so really the only mark against him is his ZOMG ANTI-ISRAEL stance and the fact that he sees little benefit in blowing up brown people wearing turbans. which is admittedly a pretty big mark with evangelicals i guess.
― (will), Wednesday, 14 December 2011 22:33 (twelve years ago) link
no, the marks against him are many. see, e.g., what his newsletters from the 90s said about black people. it's outrageous.
― Daniel, Esq., Wednesday, 14 December 2011 22:38 (twelve years ago) link
i meant wrt evangelicals. evangelicals (around here anyway) would most likely have very little problem with some of those newsletters.
― (will), Wednesday, 14 December 2011 22:41 (twelve years ago) link
oh, i didn't realize that was the limit of yr comment. still, i doubt evangelicals would approve of those type of comments (at least openly?).
paul gets by because he has a longstanding and committed small base of support, and a variation of his critique of gov't has become fashionable for the modern GOP (in response to obama's approach to the ecnomic crisis). but that would all be obliterated in an instant if his opponents decided to attack him.
― Daniel, Esq., Wednesday, 14 December 2011 22:43 (twelve years ago) link
I don't think that newsletter stuff has gotten widespread exposure tbh. the first place I saw it was actually here on ILX, where people were berating Morbius for voting for Paul at one point.
― Shakey Mo Collier, Wednesday, 14 December 2011 22:46 (twelve years ago) link
the story has kicked around some. if paul were a more serious candidate, it would get more attention.
― Daniel, Esq., Wednesday, 14 December 2011 22:48 (twelve years ago) link
i think the official Paultard line is that he didn't write the objectionable stuff in those newsletters, that they were put out without his knowledge, etc. not sure how well that would sell if he became the front-runner though.
― (will), Wednesday, 14 December 2011 22:49 (twelve years ago) link
Josh Marshall seems to think that Newt's position is strong, <a href="http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/2011/12/entrails_1.php">at least half of the way</a>.
Kind of surprised to see no-one working the "Well he says that he's faithful now because he's found proper religion. And if you can't trust a Catholic in power, then where are we?" angle
― Andrew Farrell, Wednesday, 14 December 2011 23:08 (twelve years ago) link