According to this and other pieces being reported today, Newt Gingrich has a sugar daddy. While I always thought the issue of his marriages would hurt him, it would appear that this disclosure may do him even greater harm.

Given that Newt has never run a campaign on even a state-wide level, I have to think that his background is rapidly catching up with him. What do the Newt supporters think about this? I know there are a few of you who seem to like this guy. Do you like him now?


http://www.publicintegrity.org/articles/entry/3100/

I personally can't stand Newt and think he would be the worst canidate for president.

I think Newt is an obviously flawed but intelligent man. He would not be my Top 5 Repub candidates. I highly doubt he would get the nod even without the "issues."

Frankly I could care less. Non-issue IMHO.

I'm terrified, because my company's political non-profit division seems to be rallying behind him for the next Republican Primary.

Since I don't think he'll get the 'Pub nod, that will leave us burned like last election (the company picked Huck).

Ultimately, I REALLY don't care for the guy. I already don't vote GOP, but nominating him wouldn't be the best they could do.

He's a non-factor in the race anyway. This smacks of just more...."oooooohhhh...wook at wat dose wascaly wepubwicans aw doing!"

If the only choices were R's to vote for, I'd vote for him BEFORE I'd ever vote for Huckabee or Romney. Fact.

CenterBHSFan;732330 wrote:If the only choices were R's to vote for, I'd vote for him BEFORE I'd ever vote for Huckabee or Romney. Fact.

I know he's old, but I still like this guy:

I didn't read the link. What did he do... cheat on his wife while she was undergoing cancer treatment! Pubs...at it again!!!

fish82;732284 wrote:He's a non-factor in the race anyway. This smacks of just more...."oooooohhhh...wook at wat dose wascaly wepubwicans aw doing!"

Agreed. He's in no more "trouble" now than before this report came out. He will not be a party nominee for President.

Otrap,

I can respect somebody like Paul, also, but I doubt if he'd get enough recognition and acknowledgement.

Also, I'm one of those people who don't give a damn about how old he/she may be. Unless they've got major health problems. The whole "one heartbeat away from death" thing I believe is kinda silly. Comparatively, they're ALL one heartbeat away from death; accidental, natural or otherwise. It's interesting to me that the concern used to be whether somebody was too young. Now, it's whether somebody is too old. I think it's an argument/excuse of convenience.

Likewise with the whole experience thing. That's a double-edged sword. Just take a look, domestically and in cases internationally, at where "experienced" politicians have gotten us. Is there any aspect of our fed. government that hasn't reached the mass critical point of stupidity? The bulk to which we owe to ... dun dun DUNNNNN... experience. It's enough to make one laugh to keep from crying.
I'm at the point where I'm believing that experience is worth about the same amount of a 6pk. of Charmin.

Back to Paul. I would vote for him if he ran again, rather than vote for - any of the mamby pamby R's that will run or the nut-rolls that the D's will pander with.

CenterBHSFan;732349 wrote:Likewise with the whole experience thing. That's a double-edged sword. Just take a look, domestically and in cases internationally, at where "experienced" politicians have gotten us. Is there any aspect of our fed. government that hasn't reached the mass critical point of stupidity? The bulk to which we owe to ... dun dun DUNNNNN... experience. It's enough to make one laugh to keep from crying.
I'm at the point where I'm believing that experience is worth about the same amount of a 6pk. of Charmin.

The single most inexperienced presidential candidate was elected in 2008. If on-the-job-training brings us ineptitude like we currently have, then I'll take experience every time. Funny...Chris Christie's main reason for not running in 2012 is that he says he doesn't have enough experience to do the job. Sure wish Obama had Christie's foresight to admit he's not qualified.

As far as Newt goes, I like to listen to him because he does know history. But he's no president, IMO. I'm beginning to lean towards voting for any Libertarian candidate if Mr. Christie keeps to his word. I don't know if Obama can be beat with his sycophant media, the fact the economy will be turning around, and the total disdain for the RINO's - one of whom is bound to be nominated. I remember Bob Dole being given a chance after all his service years and the R's couldn't have picked a worse candidate.

CenterBHSFan;732330 wrote:If the only choices were R's to vote for, I'd vote for him BEFORE I'd ever vote for Huckabee or Romney. Fact.

Without a doubt

Ever since that whole episode with his divorce and his wife being ill, I've not given a second thought to Newt being a viable candidate for any national office, and especially not president.

BGFalcons82;732370 wrote:The single most inexperienced presidential candidate was elected in 2008. If on-the-job-training brings us ineptitude like we currently have, then I'll take experience every time. Funny...Chris Christie's main reason for not running in 2012 is that he says he doesn't have enough experience to do the job. Sure wish Obama had Christie's foresight to admit he's not qualified.

Personally, I hardly think that Obama is the blueprint for inexperience. When thinking upon Obama, there's alot of material to work with that goes against him. I mean, anybody who willingly sat in "Rev." Wrights church for 20 years tells me that there's something kooky with him already. Then there's his own words about who he has always aligned himself with throughout his life, not to mention his openly stated political leanings and past voting records (umm, meaning his lack of voting records ). Add in to that mixture the bunch of honey-roasteds his surrounded himself with upon his election... yeah... he's certainly not what I would call the ideal standard for anybody who's looking for fresh innovation. Unless his leanings align with your own. Unfortunately, I'd say the vast majority of people who voted for him didn't take those things into account. Which is regrettable because looking at just that little bit of a backround reads like a book printed in size 72 Arial Black font.
Sadly, America constantly falls victim to pretty speeches and great commercials.

CenterBHSFan;733292 wrote:Sadly, America constantly falls victim to pretty speeches and great commercials.

We can thank Hollyweird and the leftist media for painting that color-by-numbers picture for us.

believer;733678 wrote:We can thank Hollyweird and the leftist media for painting that color-by-numbers picture for us.

Sadly, it is ourselves who deserve the blame. The majority of the population didn't see the forest for the pretty, green trees put in front of us.

We have met the enemy (of responsible civic duty), and he is us. In a manner of speaking, anyway.

O-Trap;733679 wrote:Sadly, it is ourselves who deserve the blame. The majority of the population didn't see the forest for the pretty, green trees put in front of us.

We have met the enemy (of responsible civic duty), and he is us. In a manner of speaking, anyway.

I agree....we are a society that likes pretty Hollyweird faces and catchy media sound bites. Tastes sweet but has little nutritional value.

believer;733684 wrote:I agree....we are a society that likes pretty Hollyweird faces and catchy media sound bites. Tastes sweet but has little nutritional value.

That's because voting according to those things and/or party lines takes considerably less effort.

O-Trap;733689 wrote:That's because voting according to those things and/or party lines takes considerably less effort.

True but for some, voting the party line means you've studied the issues yet have decided to be pragmatic and choose the lesser of two evils. For example, if Newt miraculously gains the Republican nomination and the 2012 choice is between BHO or Newt, guess which choice is the obvious no-brainer?

believer;733694 wrote:True but for some, voting the party line means you've studied the issues yet have decided to be pragmatic and choose the lesser of two evils. For example, if Newt miraculously gains the Republican nomination and the 2012 choice is between BHO or Newt, guess which choice is the obvious no-brainer?

One of the Third-Party candidates or Bugs Bunny.

O-Trap;733695 wrote:One of the Third-Party candidates or Bugs Bunny.

That too! lol

CenterBHSFan;733292 wrote:Personally, I hardly think that Obama is the blueprint for inexperience.

True, he's not the first. But he is the quintessential example of being elected with zero executive experience. Zero business experience. Zero governing experience (only legislating, not governing). Zero military experience.

But he sure talks well. Oops, I mean he sure reads from a teleprompter quite nicely.

BGFalcons82;734283 wrote:True, he's not the first. But he is the quintessential example of being elected with zero executive experience. Zero business experience. Zero governing experience (only legislating, not governing). Zero military experience.

But he sure talks well. Oops, I mean he sure reads from a teleprompter quite nicely.

At least he has something in common with all the other talking heads we see every day.

BGFalcons82;734283 wrote:True, he's not the first. But he is the quintessential example of being elected with zero executive experience. Zero business experience. Zero governing experience (only legislating, not governing). Zero military experience.

But he sure talks well. Oops, I mean he sure reads from a teleprompter quite nicely.

On the other side of the globe, Obama is still VERY popular among many of the lower classes, to them he is the epitome of "working" himself up, that opinion shouldn't be discounted, it is certainly worth something. To anyone that has any experience or stake in growing the economy, he's an incompetent.

We've had taxi drivers notice that we're Americans and ask us (rather directly) what we think of the Chosen One....they still buy into the facade.