Sure, I know the objections to Mitt Romney. He's a Mormon. He's rich. He's handsome. He's distant, and not engaging and dominating on TV. He's a RINO. And all that. Sure, point taken. But the very things that make Mitt Romney unpalatable to much of the South Carolina Evangelicals, and Conservatives, make him the only one running to stand a chance against Obama. Newt Gingrich hands Obama a near 50 state victory. One of so massive proportions that Nancy Pelosi returns as House Majority Leader, and Reid has only 40 at most Republicans to deal with. Perhaps less. Newt is total disaster for America, and hands Obama victory.
Because he's repulsive, in every way, to women. Period.
Rasmussen has Obama and Romney tied at 44% each while Obama leads Newt:
Today’s numbers show Obama and Romney tied at 44% each while the president leads Gingrich 47% to 40%. Romney leads the president by four among unaffiliated voters while Gingrich trails by seven. Romney also does a bit better among Republicans, picking up 79% of the GOP vote while Gingrich attracts 74%. This is consistent with results found throughout the campaign season that Tea Party activists are willing to support whoever wins the nomination while more Establishment oriented Republicans are less likely to make such a commitment.
Santorum, in a poll released today, by Rasmussen, trails Obama by ten points, 48-38.
Let us dispense with magical thinking, what Ann Coulter said was a trade of insults at Obama and the Media for Obama's re-election.
Obama has many strengths. The Media adores him, as Jesus 2.0 literally. So most low information voters, who don't care about politics, and make choices based on the media, which is most White Professional Women, are inclined to Obama anyway. Then again, he's Black. That's a built in advantage for him, again in getting White female votes. That demographic group feels "White male = boring" and fairly icky, while Black is viewed as dynamic, positive, masculine, and good. That is not fair, but that's life.
Obama has $1 billion to run negative ads, and will doubtless raise more through independent PACs run by unions and Hollywood. EVERY celebrity worthy of the name endorses him, and yes that again counts for a lot.
America is not a Center-Right nation. That ceased being true at the end of Reagan's second term. America is a place where Gays serve openly in the military, gay marriage is the law of the land in most places, Whites have no Civil Rights (according to the first Black Attorney General), Black Panthers can run voter intimidation campaigns with impunity, illegal aliens can vote in many places, and get preferential admission and tuition rates, along with college financial aid. That's not a Center-Right nation. That's not a Center nation. That's not even a Left Nation. That's a Hard Left Nation. And that's America. Today's America celebrates non-Whites, views White guys as inherently "racist" (unless they are a dominant, Alpha A-hole hottie) and engages in regular PC jihads.
Newt Gingrich will at best wage a Banzai! Kamikaze attack and go out in a blaze of glory with what is left of the old America. For those wishing to follow the path of Bushido and Yukio Mishima, the gay Japanese Ultra Right Nationalist, well Newt is your guy! Go right ahead, recite a poem to the emperor, tie on that suicide bandanna around your head, and head for the nearest ship screaming "Banzai! Banzai!"
The rest of us have to live here.
Romney's poll numbers are no fluke. Poll after poll after poll shows him being the closest to Obama. Its not a sure thing, not with the media, the innate dislike of White guys and admiration of Black guys by White women professional voters, and the enormous amount of money and (voter fraud) that Obama promises to bring to the table.
No, Newt won't "destroy" Obama in a debate. Yes Newt is a Master Debater. He's also detested by most women. Obama will remind them of this, and Newt can't go after in person that "nice Black President" who will sit there and smile with his poop-eating-grin. Any "debate" will have Anderson Cooper or Juan Williams or Al Sharpton or Jessie Jackson or Al Roker or Brian Williams jumping on any grenade that might threaten Jesus 2.0. This is reality.
In a debate, Newt will look fat and old, because he is fat and old. He will look White, because he is White. He will look ugly, because he is ugly. These things matter. Women voters make their choices on them. It is why JFK beat Nixon, why Scott Brown beat the Kennedy Machine, why Reagan beat Carter. Why Clinton beat Bush. Why Bush beat both robotic Al Gore, and weirdo John Kerry "Reporting for Duty. REEEEEEPORTING for DUUUUUTY!"
He will also look like a guy who being fat, old, ugly, and White, wanted an open marriage and cheated on two wives with mistresses. Yes that matters, if you are a Republican. A Democrat can do that, and get away with it, because the Media covers for them and pushes them as Alpha males. Newt will be portrayed as the ickies of icky beta White males.
No, Obama does not have it all his own way. Mitt Romney's argument is that being rich, he's got a stake in America. He's put his own money on the line, and is betting for America. Not selling it out in any of Obama's shady deals for cronies. Reminding voters he's rich plays to women.
Newsflash. Women LIKE rich guys. A lot. Even better when they are tall, handsome, married to the same woman for years, and are somewhat distant, stand-offish, and remote. That's Chick Crack 101. Straight out of Roissy's pickup advice.
What women do NOT like is "hot" guys who are angry, intense, and come off like this guy:
That's Newt Gingrich. "You Talking to Me?" Recall in the movie, Robert DeNiro did NOT get the girl. She found him repulsive. Don't be Robert DeNiro in Taxi Driver. That's another way of screaming "Banzai!" on a kamikaze attack. No matter how good it feels.
Steve Sailer has pointed out many times, Blacks vote Democratic, year after year, 98%. Latinos around 70%. White men, around 70% for Republicans. No surprise there, the Democrats are the anti-White guy party and Republicans by default, the White guy party. Blue collar White women, the so-called Waitress Moms, vote Republican about 70% of the time. They get little Affirmative Action, the welfare they do get is rubbed in their face by elite Whites and the Blacks/Hispanics they deal with at social services. Meanwhile they face daily harassment from non-Whites, for being White. [Pretty much most of the horrific anti-Black violence, North and South, and anti-Chinese violence in Old California, was motivated on the principle of horror deters attacks on White blue collar women. White upper class women having servants and armed men around them to deter such a thing. In other words, defense of the blue collar, White underclass family. No wonder the violence, in places like Detroit or New York City.]
Who is in play? Why White Professional Women. Who have a foot in either camp, and trade off votes based mostly on personal preferences for the candidates. That is why candidates matter, and party and ideas do not.
All politics is mostly spoils. Who and Whom? As Lenin remarked. Who gets the goodies and who gets the shaft. White Professional women get some stuff, but not a lot. They get some welfare, but that's not enough for long. It won't allow them to live the life they want and need, and mostly live. At best it is short term safety net. Nice but not a sinecure. Most of the goodies in government, the media, non-profits, and the like, including corporate America, get hoovered up by the elites. Next come Blacks and Hispanics. White Professional women are nominally part of the anti-White guy alliance, and they HATE HATE HATE Beta White males with a passion (not the least for insulting them by asking them out). But they are very junior members. Very low on the totem pole. They eat last.
Republicans don't offer much to them. [A strategic mistake, but one dictated by their ad-hoc alliance of mostly anti-Government-Elitism and defacto White Guy party.] There is no compelling reason for say, a woman who works in HR at H-P, or accounting at Apple Computer, or marketing for Nike, to vote Republican. There is no big reason against it, just not for it.
So it comes down to which candidate is the Alpha male. The way it always does. With women. Yes in 1940, before the dawn of TV, a desperate Party picked Churchill. He lost in the first major election after the War was won. Because, news flash, women don't like fat old White guys. When they had their say, they tossed him.
Unmarried women voted Obama over McCain, 70-29. Married women only 50 to 47 percent voted McCain. Yes ... HUNK MATTERS! That is how women vote! Women voted 56% to 43% for Obama in 2008, while Men voted 49 to 48% for Obama. That is the gender gap. If "Marriage is just for White people" then the overwhelming majority of married White women, voted McCain only by 3%!
Rule #1 for Republicans: No old guys, White guys only if Hunk, no weird or conservative women. Women don't like that. Any of it. See Sarah Palin's favorables (women detest her, even among just Republican women).
Newt Gingrich has already has his image cemented in the critical terrain of 2012. He's an icky fat old White guy who cheated on his wives, and then threw them out for younger models. He'd be lucky to carry 30% of the Married Women vote. This is reality.
Mitt Romney is the selfish bastard who fired people, and made lots of money, and is handsome, and somewhat cold. Good God! He's the older, silver fox version of every glittery gay vampire hero, "cold" anti-hero that women love to hate and have lots of icky sex with! He's chick magnet.
Women don't care about political passion. To them that's Travis Bickle territory. One step away from asking "You Talking to Me?" and a pyscho shoot-out. [That Bickle actually was the only one to care about a pre-teen prostitute and do something about it escapes them. Because its never about the action, it is about the being and being seen. A sad but hard truth of human nature regarding how women in aggregate act.]
Yes, for the statistically illiterate, there are women who like Newt. Who are unmarried. Some Black unmarried women doubtless love Newt Gingrich and will vote and campaign for him. So what? Obama will still carry the Black vote at 99% or so, and Black women at 99.999%
Republicans have a choice. Engage in a fruitless, pointless rebellion and pick the guy who sat next to Nancy Pelosi, endorsing global warming. The guy who made millions off Freddie and Fannie. The guy who was so inept that he lost control of his Speakership and got convicted on ethics charges [Those details WILL be released, because that's how Obama operates. Period.] A guy so bad at politics he could not even keep his own Party on his side. A guy arguably worse at being Speaker than ... Nancy Pelosi. Who is as corrupt, but better at keeping her folks in line to protect her. A guy who can't get on the ballot in Virginia. A guy who is detested by most women. A guy who is fat, White, and old, just like McCain. Plus ugly, like McCain. A guy who praises Al Sharpton, and has regular lunches and dinners with media figures. A guy with a wife who needs bribes to stay in the race, with spending $1 million at Tiffany's (his latest mistress/wife). Aguy who threw a temper tantrum because he was left off Air Force One and shut down the government in response. That guy. That's who Republicans want to go down screaming "Banzai! Banzai!" with ... Newt Gingrich.
Obama has a miserable record. Nothing to run on and terribly vulnerable to events, like war with Iran, another jihadi strike, more economic collapse, oil prices spiking, and so on.No good news for him is on the horizon. But he has a way of working, that ought to worry Republicans.
Obama has consistently won by "cheating." By rigging the contest so he faces no opposition, or Alan Keyes.
Newt Gingrich is Alan Keyes. Times ten. He knows in his heart he can't win, just like Paul. He's running to sell books, and bump up his personal appearance fees after an easy Obama victory. He sat on the couch before with Nancy Pelosi. He's doing it again. Alan Keyes. Romney is at least not Alan Keyes.
Posts
28 comments:
On the basic electability argument, I agree with you fully. And I agree that anyone who fails to see what an electoral disaster Ginrich would be is blind.
But. In the world of the alt-right, why does this matter? Why do you want Romney elected? You admit that he is essentially a RINO and, as with almost any "electable" Republican, he would AT MOST slow down the pace of liberalization / progressivization. But he won't reverse or undo anything. It's almost O'Sullivan's First Law applied to politicians: anyone who does not govern explicitly as a true rightwinger (as Romney most assuredly will not) will inevitably veer leftwards.
Isn't there a case for "the worse, the better" in 2012? I.e. the only way for things to really be turned around is for the situation to get worse first. More people's eyes need to be opened up, more people need to be awakened. For that to happen, we need more Obama, more liberalism, more "democracy".
America is on a downward trajectory. Why not let Obama own it? Romney takes over, governs as a moderate, gets tarred as a racist reactionary ANYWAY, and will then have to take responsibility for the inevitable decline that will continue to occur under his administration. Why is this good for the right?
So, why do you advocate a Romney victory? Do you really think a Romney administration will achieve anything that matters? I ask this sincerely, not rhetorically.
It might be better to let Obama win a second term and take the heat. The economy isn't getting any better and it's pretty evident we're in for a heavy double dip recession.
If Republicans gain many seats in the House and Senate which they're projected to then they can shut down Obama and gridlock him from doing anything. Keep the ship from crashing till a Republican get elected in 2016. Meanwhile Democrats and Obama take the heat for the economy. The White House and not Congress always owns the economy in the minds of the voters.
DR,
The Republicans are projected to lose seats in the House. There is speculation that Gingrich will have such a negative impact on the down ticket races that the Democrats could regain control of the U.S. House.
If Gingrich is the nominee, then the only way that many Republicans keep their seats in the House is if voters split their voting between President Obama and the Republicans down ticket.
The republicans are "projected" to lose seats in the house by a. the political science professors and b. the corporate media who both WANT republicans to lose seats in the house.
I like Newt, I think he'd make a decent president because he understands who whom. However, I don't think he beats Obama. But Mormon Romney won't "fight dirty" (ie, ask legitimate questions about Obama's past, or Holders "whites have no civil rights" comment) so I don't think he does either.
Whiskey's analysis is spot-on.
The commenters who are hoping for an Obama victory so that he can own the economic downturn are off-base in two respects:
1. During another economic crash leading to a double-dip or a depression, Obama's lefty remedial actions may be so severe that America might literally never recover. As the Emperor of Easy, Andy Williams, put it so well, we cannot forget that Obama wants America to fail:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/celebritynews/6241196/Andy-Williams-accuses-Barack-Obama-of-following-Marxist-theory.html
At least with Romney, we can be pretty sure that although he's not a real conservative, he won't try to ruin America.
2. A major economic crash could conceivably occur before the November election. If that occurs, an Obama defeat will be likely, not merely possible.
If an economic catastrophe occurs this year, women voters will vote for someone who makes them feel safe. They mostly won't vote for Gingrich for all the reasons Whiskey mentioned. Many of them will likely turn away from Obama because, as much as women love him, he's not much of an alpha and he won't make women feel safe in a time of crisis.
Romney on the other hand could benefit significantly from a crisis. As Whiskey says, he's a typical successful white alpha male. Women tend to feel secure with such men. Romney literally looks like he just walked off the set of Mad Men and women, as Whiskey has observed, love the men of Mad Men.
Romney, like Gingrich, doesn't have the chops to defeat Obama.
Romney will lose to Obama somewhere around a 52-47 margin. With Gingrich, we're looking at a massive landslide, likely in the 55-45 territory.
It is the difference between losing a few seats in the House and winning several seats in the Senate, versus losing massive seats in the House, and incurring loses in the Senate. This is counter-productive, since the newly-elected progressive Congresscritters in this scenario will still be around to obstruct the next president in 2016, whether it be Rubio, Christie, or whatever.
Yes, Romney is an opportunist douchebag at best and a progressive at worst. But think, people.
Remnant -- I don't want to pay Reparations to Al Sharpton. I'd rather live in Mexico in 2020 than 2012. So I'd rather have Romney than Obama.
Why? Because Obama will make things irreversible. Fifty million more Mexicans makes Whites a permanent and rapid minority. I don't want to pay the "White Tax" any sooner than I have to. I'd rather play for time and space like the Soviets in the Summer of 1941, delaying and putting off disaster till something comes up.
Romney is basically a slightly more Conservative Hillary Clinton. I can live with that.
He needs to be more aggressive. That can be fixed. Newt's negatives and the image of him in the public mind cannot. Romney just needs to OWN being a cold, arrogant A-hole. Just one that gets things done, because he's "all in" with his money on America. That's a winning argument. His failures have been because he wants to be loved.
He should visit Roissy's site, and get tips on how to handle women. I'm shocked candidates are not flocking to Roissy and other PUA because who knows women better than guys who have slept with hundreds of them? And had to LEARN to do it rather than being born Charlie Sheen
?
Okay, I understand where you are coming from. But I am not convinced it is correct. Two things concern me most:
1. While Romney is obviously extremely competent at whatever he does, he doesn't have his own mission. He's a manager: he's good at taking other people's missions and carrying them into action. Without his own sense of mission, he will be easily swayed by Washington (i.e. progressives).
2. Under Republican administrations, we increasingly get the boiling of the frogs, i.e. stealth progressivism that the voters don't consciously sense. Look at the Mexican immigration problem: when was it at its absolute worst? Under the "fascist", "reactionary", "racist" George W. Bush. And of course there's NCLB and other utopian schemes that had no place in a conservative administration. End result: we got more progressivism, more decline, AND we were considered a neanderthal, reactionary nation despite Bush's progressivism. I see similar things happening under a President Romney.
The worse may in fact be for the better: more frogs (White voters) will get flash-burned (and thus wake up and jump out of the pot) rather than boiled slowly (and thus continue to acquiesce to liberalism) if they see how bad the nation is becoming under Obama.
Actually, under Obama Mexican mass illegal immigration is worse. Has has basically opened the border, halted all deportations, all with a compliant media at his beck and call. Bush was better because even though he wanted to do those things, he needed his base and Obama is against the Republican base, and Bush drew media fire wherever, because he was a Republican, whereas Obama is a the first Black President and a Democrat. Therefore, Jesus 2.0.
Like it or not, we NEED ordinary White women voters on our side. Getting worse will simply kill us, I don't see with re-elected President Obama anything to be done. He'd have both the House and Senate firmly in Democratic hands, and thus would have no check. If people won't wake up now (and they haven't) they won't wake up period. Which they won't.
To sum up the options here:
Gradual Brazilification of the US, on the outside chance that we manage to turn things around at some point or settle into a tolerable balance; or
Precipitous decline, on the outside chance that it will foment a White revolution that reverses things rapidly (e.g. segregation, secession, etc.)
Calling the odds or actual outcome of either is difficult to say the least...
Your key point that this is a Hard Left nation is undeniable. I've been saying as much to my GOP friends since it became apparent after Dubya barely beat buffoon Kerry in 2004. And like many others, I bought a gun the weekend after Bammie's victory in 2008.
If there's any silver lining in this cloud, it's the pending implosion of the Democratic party after the GOP and its geriatric adherents die off along with white liberals and feminists who were too busy pursuing their "careers" to bother to have kids. A vastly shrunken productive white population will not longer be able to support a burgeoning non-white welfare class, and with much less to go around, the conflict over goodies within the Democratic party between blacks and Hispanics (two groups that hate each other anyway) will boil over. There just isn't enough room there for both of them.
Too bad I won't live long enough to see it.
Ron Paul certainly has a chance to win in the primary because he is set on winning the caucuses, because that is his campaign's strategy. He is NOT going to drop out and quit.
http://www.shortnews.com/start.cfm?id=91421
Remember, Mitt Romney needs a MAJORITY of delegates. The states this year instituted more proportional states and states with total unbinded delegates who can vote for whomever they want (like Iowa, Maine, Illinois, etc) which will split up delegates more.
There will be a brokered convention if Romney does not get at least 50% of the delegates. And Ron Paul's campaign strategy was to snatch up as many delegates as they can in the states, so if there was to be a brokered convention Ron Paul could win it.
A brokered convention picking an old man (76 years) who most of the nation considers a weirdo, with "racist" viewpoints and a crazy set of ideas and also anti-Military, and anti-Israel?
Come on. Never happen. Paul is like Herman Cain, and probably Newt Gingrich. There to sell books, personal appearance fees, and so on. He's been in Congress for what, thirty years and done what exactly?
All that money Palin made JUST by being a political celebrity sticking it to the elites/media got people's attention. That accounts for Herman Cain, Paul (again), Gingrich, and yeah probably also Santorum.
Newt reportedly did nothing in tonights debate (I'm West Coast so have not seen it). So much for Newt. Wait a day and you'll get a different one.
Do you know how the brokered convention works?
Paul is trying to overload the caucuses in every state with his supporters to vote for some of his people to become delegates. In the case of a brokered convention where all the delegates are free to choose who they want (making them unbinded), most of the delegates will be Ron Paul supporters, and vote for Ron Paul, giving him the Republican Party nomination.
It doesn't matter how most of the nation thinks if there is a brokered convention. The delegates will be the ones voting at the RNC if no candidate gets at least 1144 total delegates.
I am not debating you on whether Ron Paul would be a good president. I am just saying that there is still the possibility he can become the candidate if Romney does not get the majority.
...White Professional women are nominally part of the anti-White guy alliance, and they HATE HATE HATE Beta White males with a passion (not the least for insulting them by asking them out).
For Whiskey all roads lead to two places - Why White women HATE, HATE, HATE him and Is it good for the Jews of Israel?
That's it.
All the long winded, over the top generalizations about current events ALWAYS, ALWAYS, ALWAYS get around to those two issues.
White women don't hate White beta males. They marry them, date them, are BFF with them and get along with them just fine.
What they don't particularly like are Omega dork males with an entitlement complex who think they deserve whatever they want just because they are White males.
That's two completely different types of people.
I don't think you are emotionally prepared to understand the difference.
You're wrong.
Ron Paul has the best chance of beating Obama, because he'll take the most swing voters and democrats.
Ron Paul will have the support of everyone against the Military; that alone is at least 20% of the democrat vote.
Meanwhile Republicans will not vote for Obama. Therefore Ron Paul is the best option.
Romney is a hack who wants to go to war with Iran. No one will vote for him.
The least popular constituency is also the one that doesn't like Ron Paul, i.e. Republicans over age 35.
Guys, while I'm personally a fan of Ron Paul as well (sorry Whiskers), let's be real. While many polls have shown him to be competitive or nearly-competitive with Obama, this is only theoretical. Once he gets up there, with his old, frail white self, his high-pitched voice, and his rants (rants that I myself usually approve of, but that's irrelevant)... and faces up to a very hostile media, which runs the "racist" newsletter controversy 24/7, paints him as a whacky isolationist, on and on... no friggin' chance. Let's not forget that, Potemkin Tea Party claims to the contrary (Ron Paul was the *least* popular candidate amongst the Tea Party in SC, even though he's clearly most in line with what they proclaim to believe), most Republicans are generally alright with the big government status quo. Their vague lamentations about "big government" never manifest in specifics; we can't cut the military, and we can't cut welfare for non-whites, geezers, or corporations. Well geeze, looks like nothing really gets cut, then, which is exactly what happens.
In a nutshell, guys, TPTB don't want Ron Paul, and unfortunately, Idiocracy "hard left" America doesn't really want him either. It's all rather pointless to discuss, anyways, since he'll never be allowed the presidential nomination. Ron Paul just upsets the graft that goes to so many special interest groups, most importantly the elites and their enablers so reliant on big government.
Btw, I'm going to call the election nine+ months out: Obama wins re-election over Romney by two or three percent. I'll say 50-48, something like that, but since we don't know if there will be any significant third party challengers at this point, my main point is Obama will win with a relatively tight margin of two or three percent.
Oh yeah, and to "No Show" (AKA Rock Granite, maybe Truth?, and other names): pick one name and stick to it, man. Failing that, at least change up your tired ad hominems. Your schtick is transparent.
Good points, Zeta. Other things to keep in mind about a Paul candidacy:
-Many of his supporters in the primaries are Lefty Democrats trying to saddle the GOP with an unelectable candidate. Ron Paul supporters usually ignore this, causing them to overestimate how much he appeals to the base.
-Ron Paul will be unpopular in must-win Conservative states that went to 0bama. Take Virginia, for example. A purple state with thousands of Federal employees who'd lose their jobs if Paul's reforms came to pass. Or North Carolina, with its big Afro-Am population. The media will flog the Survival Report/Newsletters big-time, elevating turnout in the "black belt".
I'm with you on your predictions, although I'd narrow the margin a little bit. I say nominee Romney loses by 51-49, with an electoral college margin almost as big as the one from 2008.
Whiskey, you, like most of the political candidates that lose, fail to realize that people want a person who speaks what they believe and who is on their side.
Newt is doing it.
Herman Cain was doing it, and Sarah Palin does it as well.
Romney can't say what conservatives want to hear because he doesn't believe any of it, and he prides himself on his integrity.
Newt, as we know, has little integrity, and will say what he needs to in order get where he wants to go.
Whiskey,
Romney talks AT voters, not TO voters. He talks TO the media.
What grass roots Conservative primary voters want -- After 8-years of Pres. George W. Bush and 3-years of Pres. Obama -- more than anything else is someone who rhetorically fights in public for conservative positions.
Liar or not, Gingrich does that.
Romney doesn’t.
That won Gingrich S.C.
Gingrich on the campaign trail is going out of his way to engage the hopes and fears of the Tea Party.
He is respecting them and their issues, not dismissing them like Gov. Romney, or worse, mortally insulting them like Gov. Perry did on illegal immigration.
I am no fan of Gingrich.
He is a personally disorganized, professional politician looking out for #1 and populist demagogue besides.
When he was in power he had be watched like a hawk and beaten around the ears often just to get him to pay attention and not chase squirrels or do corrupt deals.
However, the key to understand here is that a demagogue makes himself a tool for other’s anger, to be a vessel they can go forth and express their rage.
The voting population of the “Unaddressed Right” in America is roughly twice as large as the “Unadressed Left.”
And by "Unadressed" I mean people who don't see candidates either right or left enough for them to bother to vote for.
Pres Obama went after the vital interests of the “Unaddressed Right” with his health care, economic, environmental and land use regulations.
Now Gingrich is riding that wave, just as he rode the rage of the Assault Weapons Ban and the Congressional Check Kiting Scandal in 1994.
The last time the “Unaddressed Right” had a Presidential candidate, his name was Ronald Reagan.
The last two times the “Unaddressed Right’s” vital interests were at stake at a national level during the Congressional midterms, were in 1994 and 2010, with the Assault Weapon Ban and Obamacare, respectively.
Now compare those three instances in American politics above to the the recent “Unaddressed Left” OWS protests.
This Presidential election the “Unaddressed Right” has the fear of Obama’s second term and the Tea Party banner to rally ’round.
And the only candidate on the Republican side that has been engaging the Tea Party on their issues has been Gingrich…who happened to be the demagogue leading the 1994 Republican take over of Congress.
That is why I don’t understand those saying Gingrich is “unelectable.”
People, like you, who are saying that are ignoring that Gingrich remains a masterful populist demagogue.
Gingrich was the one who got the Republican Congress elected via the strength of popular resentment against the Congressional Check Kiting scandal and the Assault Weapon Ban.
The current political environment, and Gingrich’s ultimate general election opponent, are letter perfect for Gingrich’s divisive “outsider versus elite insider” campaigning style.
Pres. Obama is a incumbent Chicago politician, running on a poor economic record, outside Chicago.
All Obama has is the race card, hate and vote fraud.
Solyndra is minimally three order of magnitude larger than the Check Kiting Scandal ever was.
The Gunrunner “Ship American guns to the Mexican Drug cartels and create a crisis to justify restricting Gun Rights” scandal is a much bigger and a much more important for American liberty issue than the Assault Weapon Ban ever war.
Gingrich is a pig in mud for this kind of political environment.
Gingrich’s biggest enemy has always been the man in his mirror.
Newt’s biggest allies are the Economy and the men in Romney and Obama’s mirrors.
If the total number of people employed in America is lower on Nov 2012 than on Jan 2009, whoever the Republican nominee is will be President.
It likely will be Gingrich, Heaven Help us all.
Betas don't go through women like Gingrich does. Physical attractiveness is not particularly important to women, and Gingrich can do quite well. If only he weren't such a horrible wretch.
By this measure, 0bama has tough row to hoe to obtain a second term, no matter who runs against him.
"Douglas Hibbs, whose “Bread and Peace” model analyzes just how much of post-WWII election outcomes may be explained by peace and prosperity (I have cited Hibbs myself a number of times). His formula uses only two variables — real disposable personal income per capita and military fatalities in unprovoked wars."
http://patterico.com/2012/01/29/fundamentals-are-fundamental/
We don't need women to validate our existence. 2012, is proof enough that the ballot box is a dead end. The people that you claim don't exist, have succeeded in nullifying any influence it may have had. At this stage the only thing that can save this country, is a strongman in the level of a Putin or a Pinochet. One who afraid of the chattering classes and has the means to" take out the garbage". If you know what I mean.
Learning to understand that not all wishes can be met, perhaps the best remedy to prevent disappointed and hurt.
Obat Herbal Sakit Maag Yang Aman Untuk Ibu Hamil.
Do not worry when you are ignored, but strive so deserves to be known
Metode Bernapas Ala Jepang Bantu Bikin Perut Rata.
Indeed in this life nothing is certain. But we must dare to make sure what we want to achieve.
Tips Mengatasi Jerawat Gatal dengan Manfaat Bahan Alami.
If you'd like an alternative to randomly dating girls and trying to find out the right thing to say...
If you would prefer to have women chase YOU, instead of spending your nights prowling around in noisy pubs and restaurants...
Then I encourage you to watch this eye-opening video to learn a amazing secret that has the potential to get you your personal harem of beautiful women just 24 hours from now:
FACEBOOK SEDUCTION SYSTEM...
Post a Comment