Perry’s last gaffe?

I didn’t watch the last Republican presidential candidate debate, but it sounds like Perry’s performance was out and out embarrassing:

On Wednesday night in Michigan, Perry said he would cut three agencies from the federal government but could only name two of them.

“Commerce, Education and the – what’s the third one there? Let’s see,” Perry said before his rivals volunteered the Environmental Protection Agency, which regulates pollution and is very unpopular with conservatives.

Later in the debate, Perry said he meant to say the Energy Department was the third agency he would eliminate. But it was too late. The awkard pause was out there for all to see.

via Perry: Debate gaffe won’t break my campaign – Political Hotsheet – CBS News.

Now who are you supporting?

About Gene Veith

Professor of Literature at Patrick Henry College, the Director of the Cranach Institute at Concordia Theological Seminary, a columnist for World Magazine and TableTalk, and the author of 18 books on different facets of Christianity & Culture.

  • fws

    Obama!

  • fws

    Obama!

  • SKPeterson

    And I was all ready with my “Save a pretzel for the gas jets” Perry campaign signs. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BhDhDRvHaGs

    I’m still supporting Ron Paul. He’s the most consistent Republican in the field.

  • SKPeterson

    And I was all ready with my “Save a pretzel for the gas jets” Perry campaign signs. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BhDhDRvHaGs

    I’m still supporting Ron Paul. He’s the most consistent Republican in the field.

  • Mike

    I may just play eenie, meenie, miney, mo for the primaries. Then vote Republican in general election. Any one of them–eenie, meenie, miney, or mo–is still better than Obama.

  • Mike

    I may just play eenie, meenie, miney, mo for the primaries. Then vote Republican in general election. Any one of them–eenie, meenie, miney, or mo–is still better than Obama.

  • Bassett Horn

    None of the Above is Acceptable has my support right now

  • Bassett Horn

    None of the Above is Acceptable has my support right now

  • http://www.matthewcochran.net/blog Matt Cochran

    Not that I support Perry, but… Considering that our current president thought there were 57 states, and the previous president had his own serious speaking issues, I see no reason why this should be a campaign-killer. If it’s being billed that way in the media, it’s because the media wants Perry’s campaign killed.

  • http://www.matthewcochran.net/blog Matt Cochran

    Not that I support Perry, but… Considering that our current president thought there were 57 states, and the previous president had his own serious speaking issues, I see no reason why this should be a campaign-killer. If it’s being billed that way in the media, it’s because the media wants Perry’s campaign killed.

  • Saluton

    Ron Paul

  • Saluton

    Ron Paul

  • http://www.thisweconfess.wordpress.com Lucas Woodford

    Newt is on the rise, is the most experienced and seasoned legislator, has the most reasonable, legitimate, and encompassing plan, genuinely understands foreign and domestic policy, as well as politics in general. He does have a checkered moral past, but if he could just make himself more relatable I think he would garner more appeal.

  • http://www.thisweconfess.wordpress.com Lucas Woodford

    Newt is on the rise, is the most experienced and seasoned legislator, has the most reasonable, legitimate, and encompassing plan, genuinely understands foreign and domestic policy, as well as politics in general. He does have a checkered moral past, but if he could just make himself more relatable I think he would garner more appeal.

  • Michael B.

    If Romney or Huntsman is nominated, no conservative can ask himself the question whether or not they like the Republican nominee. A conservative who asks himself that question will stay home or vote 3rd party. For a Republican victory, the question conservatives must ask themselves is: How do you feel about another 4 years of Barack Obama?

  • Michael B.

    If Romney or Huntsman is nominated, no conservative can ask himself the question whether or not they like the Republican nominee. A conservative who asks himself that question will stay home or vote 3rd party. For a Republican victory, the question conservatives must ask themselves is: How do you feel about another 4 years of Barack Obama?

  • kerner

    Weirdly, this is making me look at Perry’s platform more, not less. I have to wonder how a guy who has such a reputation for being tongue tied on national TV managed to get elected and govern the State of Texas all these years. Now I need to see what kind of substance has been making up for all that bad form.

  • kerner

    Weirdly, this is making me look at Perry’s platform more, not less. I have to wonder how a guy who has such a reputation for being tongue tied on national TV managed to get elected and govern the State of Texas all these years. Now I need to see what kind of substance has been making up for all that bad form.

  • Carl Vehse

    “Now who are you supporting?”

    Certainly not TraitorObama! Nor MushyMormonMitt!

    With Palin out, it looks like I’m back to my historic choice for a presidential candidate (Hint: he’s a well known, honest, and beloved cartoon character).

  • Carl Vehse

    “Now who are you supporting?”

    Certainly not TraitorObama! Nor MushyMormonMitt!

    With Palin out, it looks like I’m back to my historic choice for a presidential candidate (Hint: he’s a well known, honest, and beloved cartoon character).

  • Abby

    Has anyone ever seen a coach hired by putting him/her up against a panel for some “onstage” questioning? Or are they hired for past performance skill somewhere else? “Offstage” skill is much different when one is on the job handling issues and making decisions.

    Oratory by itself is a bad indicator. (Hitler? Wasn’t he known for this skill? I don’t know, I never listened to him.) However, it is needed in a President. Newt has a good suggestion for Perry: go do a lot of town hall meetings and get the practice fielding a lot of questions and talking to the people. That sounds like good advice.

    He had the guts to talk about the gaffe quickly on the David Letterman show: http://youtu.be/u1oCDzNV9HI.

    Who am I for? I don’t know–sometimes who I’m for doesn”t make the nomination. But past on-the-job performance means more to me than oratory.

  • Abby

    Has anyone ever seen a coach hired by putting him/her up against a panel for some “onstage” questioning? Or are they hired for past performance skill somewhere else? “Offstage” skill is much different when one is on the job handling issues and making decisions.

    Oratory by itself is a bad indicator. (Hitler? Wasn’t he known for this skill? I don’t know, I never listened to him.) However, it is needed in a President. Newt has a good suggestion for Perry: go do a lot of town hall meetings and get the practice fielding a lot of questions and talking to the people. That sounds like good advice.

    He had the guts to talk about the gaffe quickly on the David Letterman show: http://youtu.be/u1oCDzNV9HI.

    Who am I for? I don’t know–sometimes who I’m for doesn”t make the nomination. But past on-the-job performance means more to me than oratory.

  • http://geochristian.wordpress.com/ Kevin N

    I’m thinking more seriously about Newt. Intelligent, experienced, doesn’t give in to every nuke-the-whales plank of the tea party.

  • http://geochristian.wordpress.com/ Kevin N

    I’m thinking more seriously about Newt. Intelligent, experienced, doesn’t give in to every nuke-the-whales plank of the tea party.

  • Gary

    Hahaha. I just shake my head. This house–your house– is in such disarray. Yes, please, please….vote for Ron Paul. All of you. Don’t look at other candidates, he’s really the one. ‘Cuz America thinks like he does. Really.

    Getting back to reality, Kevin, I completely agree with you. Newt is the smartest candidate and the one with the most interesting ideas. But he can’t get his party’s nomination, and if he did get it, I still doubt if he could beat President Obama. In my estimation, Mitt is the only one who can beat the President, and he can’t get his party’s nomination either. Cain has imploded. Now Perry has stumbled.

    I’m gonna pop some corn.

  • Gary

    Hahaha. I just shake my head. This house–your house– is in such disarray. Yes, please, please….vote for Ron Paul. All of you. Don’t look at other candidates, he’s really the one. ‘Cuz America thinks like he does. Really.

    Getting back to reality, Kevin, I completely agree with you. Newt is the smartest candidate and the one with the most interesting ideas. But he can’t get his party’s nomination, and if he did get it, I still doubt if he could beat President Obama. In my estimation, Mitt is the only one who can beat the President, and he can’t get his party’s nomination either. Cain has imploded. Now Perry has stumbled.

    I’m gonna pop some corn.

  • matt

    I can’t vote for either a Demi or Repubi as the two-party system hasn’t worked and won’t ever work. (Tho I did vote for Obama Bin Biden just because Palin was on the other side). This we/they seige mentality is a sham. And what kind of egomaniac would want to be President anyway? Bring back the kings.

  • matt

    I can’t vote for either a Demi or Repubi as the two-party system hasn’t worked and won’t ever work. (Tho I did vote for Obama Bin Biden just because Palin was on the other side). This we/they seige mentality is a sham. And what kind of egomaniac would want to be President anyway? Bring back the kings.

  • DonS

    I agree with Matt @ 5 that Obama’s reputed “golden tongue” is a great exaggeration. Republican gaffes seem always to be far more trumpeted than Democratic ones. However, if you know that debating is your weak point, wouldn’t you work on that harder? Why doesn’t Perry work his tail off and try at least to be functional behind the podium? Forgetting that you want to abolish the Dept. of Energy when energy is your main platform is a pretty ridiculous mistake for a guy who already knew he needed to improve in his debating efforts.

    Conservatives need a candidate who can articulate why conservative ideas are best and how they can help us to begin to address our many problems, most of which have been brought on by the dominance of liberal power in our society. I think that is why Gingrich is getting another careful look, and is probably the best remaining “not Romney” candidate we have.

    Bottom line — anybody but Obama in the general election. No one could ever be a worse and more imperious president than he has been.

  • DonS

    I agree with Matt @ 5 that Obama’s reputed “golden tongue” is a great exaggeration. Republican gaffes seem always to be far more trumpeted than Democratic ones. However, if you know that debating is your weak point, wouldn’t you work on that harder? Why doesn’t Perry work his tail off and try at least to be functional behind the podium? Forgetting that you want to abolish the Dept. of Energy when energy is your main platform is a pretty ridiculous mistake for a guy who already knew he needed to improve in his debating efforts.

    Conservatives need a candidate who can articulate why conservative ideas are best and how they can help us to begin to address our many problems, most of which have been brought on by the dominance of liberal power in our society. I think that is why Gingrich is getting another careful look, and is probably the best remaining “not Romney” candidate we have.

    Bottom line — anybody but Obama in the general election. No one could ever be a worse and more imperious president than he has been.

  • Rev. F. Bischoff

    I’m still undecided. As to Perry’s gaff, I’ve been there. I must say the Lord’s Prayer 5o times a week. I remember last year during a worship service where half-way through, I simply forgot what came next. Total blank. Fortunately the congregation was saying it along with me, so I just stopped and let them carry on until I could pick it up with them again.

  • Rev. F. Bischoff

    I’m still undecided. As to Perry’s gaff, I’ve been there. I must say the Lord’s Prayer 5o times a week. I remember last year during a worship service where half-way through, I simply forgot what came next. Total blank. Fortunately the congregation was saying it along with me, so I just stopped and let them carry on until I could pick it up with them again.

  • WisdomLover

    Perry’s gaffe should not matter.

    It should be treated about the way Obama’s 57 state slip was treated. Funny, but not terribly important.

    BTW, I loathe Obama on the merits. But the 57 state thing is a canard. He never said there were 57 states. He said he wasn’t going to Alaska or Hawaii, but still had one state to visit, so he’d been in 57 states…he obviously meant to say 47. (Even if you think he meant to say 57, you should at least, then, say that he thinks there are 60 states.)

    But the gaffe does matter, and he won’t get the same treatment Obama got. And it’s no use to think otherwise.

    SNL, the news source for more than a few voters, hasn’t even weighed in yet. Perry better get on there and soon. This week if he can manage it. If he doesn’t get in front of the ridicule, he’ll be buried by it.

    What this shows is that Perry should never have agreed to the first debate. The primary debates are designed by liberals to anoint liberal messiahs and trash conservative challengers. They’re a joke.

    Perry should have identified them for what they are and passed. He’d still be the front-runner.

    The only debate format that makes any sense at all is the Lincoln-Douglas style that Newt and Cain had on C-SPAN. Perry would do fine in that context. Any reasonably intelligent adult would. And the voters would actually get a better idea of what the candidates are about.

    With Perry probably dead in the water, I drop to my third choice (Pawlenty was my second): Newt. I hope I don’t have to pick another, then I’d really feel like I’m settling.

    You gotta think that T-Paw must be kicking himself now for dropping so early. He’d probably be the front-runner.

  • WisdomLover

    Perry’s gaffe should not matter.

    It should be treated about the way Obama’s 57 state slip was treated. Funny, but not terribly important.

    BTW, I loathe Obama on the merits. But the 57 state thing is a canard. He never said there were 57 states. He said he wasn’t going to Alaska or Hawaii, but still had one state to visit, so he’d been in 57 states…he obviously meant to say 47. (Even if you think he meant to say 57, you should at least, then, say that he thinks there are 60 states.)

    But the gaffe does matter, and he won’t get the same treatment Obama got. And it’s no use to think otherwise.

    SNL, the news source for more than a few voters, hasn’t even weighed in yet. Perry better get on there and soon. This week if he can manage it. If he doesn’t get in front of the ridicule, he’ll be buried by it.

    What this shows is that Perry should never have agreed to the first debate. The primary debates are designed by liberals to anoint liberal messiahs and trash conservative challengers. They’re a joke.

    Perry should have identified them for what they are and passed. He’d still be the front-runner.

    The only debate format that makes any sense at all is the Lincoln-Douglas style that Newt and Cain had on C-SPAN. Perry would do fine in that context. Any reasonably intelligent adult would. And the voters would actually get a better idea of what the candidates are about.

    With Perry probably dead in the water, I drop to my third choice (Pawlenty was my second): Newt. I hope I don’t have to pick another, then I’d really feel like I’m settling.

    You gotta think that T-Paw must be kicking himself now for dropping so early. He’d probably be the front-runner.

  • Bob

    I’m supporting Dave Letterman.
    :)

    Seriously, Rick Perry doing the Top Ten was really funny.

  • Bob

    I’m supporting Dave Letterman.
    :)

    Seriously, Rick Perry doing the Top Ten was really funny.

  • Susan

    I didn’t see the press conference either but upon hearing the segment where Gov Perry got a case of brain-lock I had to laugh out loud. Who hasn’t this happened to when speaking publicly, and who could forget Obama’s ’57 states’, the military ‘corpseman’, and the ‘Austrian language’? Or George W Bush’s ‘strategery’ in ‘misunderestimating’ people?

    Give it a rest, guys. He didn’t let it faze him, neither should it be cause for alarm for anyone else. This stumble is hardly the end of the world, much less a Presidential campaign.

  • Susan

    I didn’t see the press conference either but upon hearing the segment where Gov Perry got a case of brain-lock I had to laugh out loud. Who hasn’t this happened to when speaking publicly, and who could forget Obama’s ’57 states’, the military ‘corpseman’, and the ‘Austrian language’? Or George W Bush’s ‘strategery’ in ‘misunderestimating’ people?

    Give it a rest, guys. He didn’t let it faze him, neither should it be cause for alarm for anyone else. This stumble is hardly the end of the world, much less a Presidential campaign.

  • JunkerGeorg

    @Gary, #13
    Hahaha. I just shake my head. This house–your house– is in such disarray. Yes, please, please….vote for Ron Paul. All of you. Don’t look at other candidates, he’s really the one. ‘Cuz America thinks like he does. Really. Getting back to reality, Kevin, I completely agree with you. Newt is the smartest candidate and the one with the most interesting ideas.
    ——————————————

    Dude, this Bill O’Reilly/Faux News-like cynicism on Ron Paul is so 2008. Many of us have done our homework and aren’t buying it anymore. He’s been right on too many things long before anyone else came on board.

    If I had to pick between poisons, yes, Gingrich would perhaps be the best choice, at least we’d die a slower death. He still has a record as a big government statist, but at least he’s been parroting Ron Paul on the Fed, at least to fully audit the Fed. But thankfully, some of us have evolved from your basic Fox News neoconservative talking points, and have come to understand and appreciate Ron Paul.

    If you ask a Mitt Romney supporter why they like him, most of the responses are: He acts/seems/looks Presidential, and he has a Business Background.

    If you ask a Herman Cain supporter why they like him, most of the responses are: He has a Business Background, and he isn’t a Politician.

    If you ask a Rick Perry supporter why they like him, most of the responses are: He is from Texas, and he is a Strong Conservative (which is not true).

    If you ask a Gingrich supporter why they like him, it is because he is a talented debater, a skilled pontificator who gives the impression he knows what he is talking about. (I agree by the way.) However, he is a flip-flopping opportunist and hence, some of us don’t trust him. Um, he supported TARP. That should be enough about how “smart” he is.

    But, if you ask a Ron Paul supporter why they like him, most of the responses are: Well, he wants to initially audit and eventually end the Federal Reserve; Limit the Power of Government; Stay out of Undeclared Foreign Wars; He is Pro-Life, yet in a Constitutionally-faithful way in which states are sovereign and must decide such matters; He predicted the housing bubble way before anyone else was (back in 2003), He strictly adheres to the Constitution unlike both parties; He wants the Gold Standard (hard money) back; He wants to eliminate the Departments of Education, Energy, Housing and Urban Development, Commerce, and Interior, and last but not least, he would take a Presidential Salary of just $39,336 (A 90% Pay-Cut). :)

    But hey Gary, go ahead and laugh at all of us Ron Paul supporters, many of whom are simply recovering Fox New zombie neocons who took the red pill, an easy pill to swallow when you consider the 15 trillion debt, 10+years in Afghanistan (why are we still there exactly?), and an open southern border with no decent magnet-destroying illegal immigrant legislation in place. We are hard-core because we actually know what we’re getting when we vote for Ron Paul. All anyone has to do is pick up a copy of the US Constitution and they know what Ron Paul has done for the past 30 years and will do in the future, we’re he to miraculously win the Republican nomination (I have no doubt he would kill Obama in a head-to-head). Don’t count him out just yet. Remember that Reagan ran on a similar conservative-liberatarian platform against the establishment Republican George Bush, and pulled out the win.

  • JunkerGeorg

    @Gary, #13
    Hahaha. I just shake my head. This house–your house– is in such disarray. Yes, please, please….vote for Ron Paul. All of you. Don’t look at other candidates, he’s really the one. ‘Cuz America thinks like he does. Really. Getting back to reality, Kevin, I completely agree with you. Newt is the smartest candidate and the one with the most interesting ideas.
    ——————————————

    Dude, this Bill O’Reilly/Faux News-like cynicism on Ron Paul is so 2008. Many of us have done our homework and aren’t buying it anymore. He’s been right on too many things long before anyone else came on board.

    If I had to pick between poisons, yes, Gingrich would perhaps be the best choice, at least we’d die a slower death. He still has a record as a big government statist, but at least he’s been parroting Ron Paul on the Fed, at least to fully audit the Fed. But thankfully, some of us have evolved from your basic Fox News neoconservative talking points, and have come to understand and appreciate Ron Paul.

    If you ask a Mitt Romney supporter why they like him, most of the responses are: He acts/seems/looks Presidential, and he has a Business Background.

    If you ask a Herman Cain supporter why they like him, most of the responses are: He has a Business Background, and he isn’t a Politician.

    If you ask a Rick Perry supporter why they like him, most of the responses are: He is from Texas, and he is a Strong Conservative (which is not true).

    If you ask a Gingrich supporter why they like him, it is because he is a talented debater, a skilled pontificator who gives the impression he knows what he is talking about. (I agree by the way.) However, he is a flip-flopping opportunist and hence, some of us don’t trust him. Um, he supported TARP. That should be enough about how “smart” he is.

    But, if you ask a Ron Paul supporter why they like him, most of the responses are: Well, he wants to initially audit and eventually end the Federal Reserve; Limit the Power of Government; Stay out of Undeclared Foreign Wars; He is Pro-Life, yet in a Constitutionally-faithful way in which states are sovereign and must decide such matters; He predicted the housing bubble way before anyone else was (back in 2003), He strictly adheres to the Constitution unlike both parties; He wants the Gold Standard (hard money) back; He wants to eliminate the Departments of Education, Energy, Housing and Urban Development, Commerce, and Interior, and last but not least, he would take a Presidential Salary of just $39,336 (A 90% Pay-Cut). :)

    But hey Gary, go ahead and laugh at all of us Ron Paul supporters, many of whom are simply recovering Fox New zombie neocons who took the red pill, an easy pill to swallow when you consider the 15 trillion debt, 10+years in Afghanistan (why are we still there exactly?), and an open southern border with no decent magnet-destroying illegal immigrant legislation in place. We are hard-core because we actually know what we’re getting when we vote for Ron Paul. All anyone has to do is pick up a copy of the US Constitution and they know what Ron Paul has done for the past 30 years and will do in the future, we’re he to miraculously win the Republican nomination (I have no doubt he would kill Obama in a head-to-head). Don’t count him out just yet. Remember that Reagan ran on a similar conservative-liberatarian platform against the establishment Republican George Bush, and pulled out the win.

  • Grace

    After all Obama’s gaffs, couple that with Obama’s non-existent performance/.. non-excellence. – - – - Rick Perry has an excellent history, he’s performed admirably.

    The liberal press, wishes nothing more than to rid itself of Rick Perry. They know Mitt Romney is a weightless candidate. Cain knows how to run a Pizza corporation, but who cares? When Cain starts down the 999 road, the jokes on him. This country isn’t a big pizza, waiting for another experiment, from someone who has no more experience in running a country than Gore has giving us the temperature in ten years.

  • Grace

    After all Obama’s gaffs, couple that with Obama’s non-existent performance/.. non-excellence. – - – - Rick Perry has an excellent history, he’s performed admirably.

    The liberal press, wishes nothing more than to rid itself of Rick Perry. They know Mitt Romney is a weightless candidate. Cain knows how to run a Pizza corporation, but who cares? When Cain starts down the 999 road, the jokes on him. This country isn’t a big pizza, waiting for another experiment, from someone who has no more experience in running a country than Gore has giving us the temperature in ten years.

  • SKPeterson

    Grace – To be fair to Herman Cain (whom I am not supporting), he has probably done more good for the country by serving pizza to American consumers than most of the rest of the Republicans in the race have done “serving” government to American citizens.

  • SKPeterson

    Grace – To be fair to Herman Cain (whom I am not supporting), he has probably done more good for the country by serving pizza to American consumers than most of the rest of the Republicans in the race have done “serving” government to American citizens.

  • Rose

    Perry’s gaffe—He should have said, “Where’s the teleprompter when you need one?”

  • Rose

    Perry’s gaffe—He should have said, “Where’s the teleprompter when you need one?”

  • Grace

    SKPeterson @ 22

    “Herman Cain (whom I am not supporting), he has probably done more good for the country by serving pizza to American consumers than most of the rest of the Republicans in the race have done “serving” government to American citizens.

    Cain serving pizza vs. Perry as Gov. of Texas is lame. Perry has been an outstanding Governor – Cain hasn’t a clue when it comes to government, he has no experience. The moment Cain blurted out his 999 game, he lost – then when he stated it again at the last debate, his credibility took a dive. Cain is determined, when it comes to 999 taxes.

  • Grace

    SKPeterson @ 22

    “Herman Cain (whom I am not supporting), he has probably done more good for the country by serving pizza to American consumers than most of the rest of the Republicans in the race have done “serving” government to American citizens.

    Cain serving pizza vs. Perry as Gov. of Texas is lame. Perry has been an outstanding Governor – Cain hasn’t a clue when it comes to government, he has no experience. The moment Cain blurted out his 999 game, he lost – then when he stated it again at the last debate, his credibility took a dive. Cain is determined, when it comes to 999 taxes.

  • helen

    What makes Perry “outstanding”?
    Do you vote for a thick head of hair?

    He’s good at rewarding his friends and punishing his enemies
    (anybody who dares disagree with him, near as I can tell).
    As far as education is concerned, he’s an Aggie yell leader.
    “Says it all” in Austin. :(

  • helen

    What makes Perry “outstanding”?
    Do you vote for a thick head of hair?

    He’s good at rewarding his friends and punishing his enemies
    (anybody who dares disagree with him, near as I can tell).
    As far as education is concerned, he’s an Aggie yell leader.
    “Says it all” in Austin. :(

  • Grace

    helen @ 25

    Why even mention thick hair, it makes no sense.

    You state: “He’s good at rewarding his friends and punishing his enemies
    (anybody who dares disagree with him, near as I can tell).
    As far as education is concerned, he’s an Aggie yell leader.”

    1. How does Rick Perry “punish his enemies” ? what sort of things does he do?

    2. As for “education” – what does Perry do which demonstrates his being an “Aggie yell leader” ?

  • Grace

    helen @ 25

    Why even mention thick hair, it makes no sense.

    You state: “He’s good at rewarding his friends and punishing his enemies
    (anybody who dares disagree with him, near as I can tell).
    As far as education is concerned, he’s an Aggie yell leader.”

    1. How does Rick Perry “punish his enemies” ? what sort of things does he do?

    2. As for “education” – what does Perry do which demonstrates his being an “Aggie yell leader” ?

  • Booklover

    I agree with several others that the gaffe shouldn’t make a difference.

    I am sick to death that our 24/7 news coverage and news opinions and opinions on opinions are keeping the true issues submerged in the muck.

  • Booklover

    I agree with several others that the gaffe shouldn’t make a difference.

    I am sick to death that our 24/7 news coverage and news opinions and opinions on opinions are keeping the true issues submerged in the muck.

  • Grace

    We just finished watching the latest debate. This one was the best yet.

    Perry and Newt are clear winners!

  • Grace

    We just finished watching the latest debate. This one was the best yet.

    Perry and Newt are clear winners!

  • JunkerGeorg

    It appears that Newt Gingrich is the Media’s new flavor of the week. Newt certainly is a good speaker, and his rhetoric certainly appears “conservative” in terms of those 30 sec. talking points, although even that label of “conservative” means different things to different people (i.e., socially, fiscally, constitutionally, etc.?) While many Republican voters assess Romney on the basis of his past record (and religion?) and have their doubts, will they do their homework on Newt’s record too, or just go on subjective impressions of him by his impressive rhetoric and/or that simple desperation to find a viable alternative to Romney?

    I found these facts on Newt’s record helpful in assessing him:

    04/02/1987 – He cosponsored the 1987 Fairness Doctrine (anti First Amendment legislation).
    10/22/1991 – He voted for an amendment that would create a National Police Corps.
    11/19/1993 – He voted for the NAFTA Implementation Act.
    11/27/1994 – He supported the GATT Treaty giving sovereignty to the U.N.
    01/06/1996 – He himself conceived a secret CIA mission to topple the Iranian leadership.
    04/25/1996 – Voted for the single largest increase on Federal education spending ($3.5 Billion).
    06/20/1995 – He wrote the foreword to a book about tearing down the U.S. Constitution in order to get around US sovereignty and implement a globalist, one world government model.
    01/22/1997 – Congress gave him a record-setting $300,000 fine for ethical wrongdoing.
    11/29/2006 – He called for a serious debate on the 1st Amendment, stating that the free speech of all citizens should be curtailed in order to fight terrorism (e.g., stopping terrorists from using the internet.), calling for a “Geneva Convention for terrorists” so it would be clear which American citizens the Constitution need not apply to, namely, those under suspicion of being terrorists (which, according to the “watchlist” of Dept of Homeland Security, includes many Americans, including Christian pro-lifers, NRA advocates, etc.)
    02/15/2007 – He supported Bush’s proposal for mandatory carbon caps.
    04/04/2007 – He says that there should be a clear distinction about what kind of guns should be reserved for only for the military, contrary to the 2nd Amendment.
    04/17/2008 – Made a commercial with Nancy Pelosi on Climate Change.
    09/28/2008 – Says if he were in office, he would have reluctantly voted for the $700B TARP bailout.
    10/01/2008 – Says in an article that TARP was a “workout, not a bailout.”
    12/08/2008 – He was paid $300,000 by Freddie Mac to halt Congress from bringing necessary reform.
    07/30/2010 – Says that Iraq was just step one in defeating the “Axis of Evil”, and hence, on 08/03/2010 advocated future attacks on Iran and North Korea.
    11/15/2010 – He defended Romneycare.
    12/02/2010 – He advocates a fast-track to US citizenship for illegal aliens (while foreigners legitimate seeking US citizenship must follow the regular process.)
    12/05/2010 – He said that a website owner should be considered an enemy combatant, hunted down and executed, for publishing leaked government memos.
    01/30/2011 – He lobbied for ethanol subsidies (being a paid lobbyist for Federal ethanol subsidies).
    01/30/2011 – He suggested that flex-fuel vehicles be mandated for all Americans.
    02/10/2011 – He wants to replace the EPA instead of abolishing it.
    02/02/2011 – He says we are “losing the War on Terror”; the conflict will be as long as the Cold War.
    02/15/2011 – He states in his book that he believes in man-made climate-change and advocated creating “a new endowment for conservation and the environment.”
    03/09/2011 – He blames his infidelity to multiple wives on his passion for the country.
    03/15/2011 – Says that NAFTA worked because it created jobs in Mexico.
    03/19/2011 – He has no regrets about supporting Medicare drug coverage. (Now a $7.2 trillion unfunded liability).
    03/23/2011 – He completely flip-flopped on Libyan intervention in 16 days, first pointing out that it was unconstitutional (i.e., took place without a vote of congress to approve military action), before later approving the intervention.
    03/25/2011 – He states that he plans to sign as many as 200 “executive orders” (bypassing a vote of congress) on his first day as president.
    05/11/2011 – His campaign video said that he wants to “find solutions together, and insist on imposing those solutions on those who do not want to change.”
    05/12/2011 – He was more supportive of individual health-care mandates than Mitt Romney.
    05/15/2011 – Said GOP’s plan to cut back Medicare (a failed program which is currently over $7 trillion in unfunded liabilities) was “too big a jump.”
    05/15/2011 – He backed Obama’s individual mandate, stating, “All of us have a responsibility to help pay for health care.”
    05/16/2011 – He also endorsed individual mandates in 1993 when Clinton pushed Universal Health Care.
    05/17/2011 – He has an outstanding debt to Tiffany’s Jewelry of between $250K – $500K.
    06/09/2011 – His own campaign staff resigned en masse.
    07/15/2011 – His poorly managed campaign is over $1 Million in debt.
    08/01/2011 – He hired a company to create a fake Twitter account to appear as if he had a following.
    08/11/2011 – His recent criticism of the United Nations is United Nations by a long, long history of supporting it.
    09/27/2011 – He says that he “helped develop the model for Homeland Security” (e.g., TSA agency).
    10/07/2011 – He said he’d ignore the Supreme Court if need be.
    —————————————————————————-

  • JunkerGeorg

    It appears that Newt Gingrich is the Media’s new flavor of the week. Newt certainly is a good speaker, and his rhetoric certainly appears “conservative” in terms of those 30 sec. talking points, although even that label of “conservative” means different things to different people (i.e., socially, fiscally, constitutionally, etc.?) While many Republican voters assess Romney on the basis of his past record (and religion?) and have their doubts, will they do their homework on Newt’s record too, or just go on subjective impressions of him by his impressive rhetoric and/or that simple desperation to find a viable alternative to Romney?

    I found these facts on Newt’s record helpful in assessing him:

    04/02/1987 – He cosponsored the 1987 Fairness Doctrine (anti First Amendment legislation).
    10/22/1991 – He voted for an amendment that would create a National Police Corps.
    11/19/1993 – He voted for the NAFTA Implementation Act.
    11/27/1994 – He supported the GATT Treaty giving sovereignty to the U.N.
    01/06/1996 – He himself conceived a secret CIA mission to topple the Iranian leadership.
    04/25/1996 – Voted for the single largest increase on Federal education spending ($3.5 Billion).
    06/20/1995 – He wrote the foreword to a book about tearing down the U.S. Constitution in order to get around US sovereignty and implement a globalist, one world government model.
    01/22/1997 – Congress gave him a record-setting $300,000 fine for ethical wrongdoing.
    11/29/2006 – He called for a serious debate on the 1st Amendment, stating that the free speech of all citizens should be curtailed in order to fight terrorism (e.g., stopping terrorists from using the internet.), calling for a “Geneva Convention for terrorists” so it would be clear which American citizens the Constitution need not apply to, namely, those under suspicion of being terrorists (which, according to the “watchlist” of Dept of Homeland Security, includes many Americans, including Christian pro-lifers, NRA advocates, etc.)
    02/15/2007 – He supported Bush’s proposal for mandatory carbon caps.
    04/04/2007 – He says that there should be a clear distinction about what kind of guns should be reserved for only for the military, contrary to the 2nd Amendment.
    04/17/2008 – Made a commercial with Nancy Pelosi on Climate Change.
    09/28/2008 – Says if he were in office, he would have reluctantly voted for the $700B TARP bailout.
    10/01/2008 – Says in an article that TARP was a “workout, not a bailout.”
    12/08/2008 – He was paid $300,000 by Freddie Mac to halt Congress from bringing necessary reform.
    07/30/2010 – Says that Iraq was just step one in defeating the “Axis of Evil”, and hence, on 08/03/2010 advocated future attacks on Iran and North Korea.
    11/15/2010 – He defended Romneycare.
    12/02/2010 – He advocates a fast-track to US citizenship for illegal aliens (while foreigners legitimate seeking US citizenship must follow the regular process.)
    12/05/2010 – He said that a website owner should be considered an enemy combatant, hunted down and executed, for publishing leaked government memos.
    01/30/2011 – He lobbied for ethanol subsidies (being a paid lobbyist for Federal ethanol subsidies).
    01/30/2011 – He suggested that flex-fuel vehicles be mandated for all Americans.
    02/10/2011 – He wants to replace the EPA instead of abolishing it.
    02/02/2011 – He says we are “losing the War on Terror”; the conflict will be as long as the Cold War.
    02/15/2011 – He states in his book that he believes in man-made climate-change and advocated creating “a new endowment for conservation and the environment.”
    03/09/2011 – He blames his infidelity to multiple wives on his passion for the country.
    03/15/2011 – Says that NAFTA worked because it created jobs in Mexico.
    03/19/2011 – He has no regrets about supporting Medicare drug coverage. (Now a $7.2 trillion unfunded liability).
    03/23/2011 – He completely flip-flopped on Libyan intervention in 16 days, first pointing out that it was unconstitutional (i.e., took place without a vote of congress to approve military action), before later approving the intervention.
    03/25/2011 – He states that he plans to sign as many as 200 “executive orders” (bypassing a vote of congress) on his first day as president.
    05/11/2011 – His campaign video said that he wants to “find solutions together, and insist on imposing those solutions on those who do not want to change.”
    05/12/2011 – He was more supportive of individual health-care mandates than Mitt Romney.
    05/15/2011 – Said GOP’s plan to cut back Medicare (a failed program which is currently over $7 trillion in unfunded liabilities) was “too big a jump.”
    05/15/2011 – He backed Obama’s individual mandate, stating, “All of us have a responsibility to help pay for health care.”
    05/16/2011 – He also endorsed individual mandates in 1993 when Clinton pushed Universal Health Care.
    05/17/2011 – He has an outstanding debt to Tiffany’s Jewelry of between $250K – $500K.
    06/09/2011 – His own campaign staff resigned en masse.
    07/15/2011 – His poorly managed campaign is over $1 Million in debt.
    08/01/2011 – He hired a company to create a fake Twitter account to appear as if he had a following.
    08/11/2011 – His recent criticism of the United Nations is United Nations by a long, long history of supporting it.
    09/27/2011 – He says that he “helped develop the model for Homeland Security” (e.g., TSA agency).
    10/07/2011 – He said he’d ignore the Supreme Court if need be.
    —————————————————————————-

  • Grace

    JunkerGeorg @ 29

    “You state: “While many Republican voters assess Romney on the basis of his past record (and religion?) and have their doubts, will they do their homework on Newt’s record too, or just go on subjective impressions of him by his impressive rhetoric and/or that simple desperation to find a viable alternative to Romney?”

    So this is where you found your list, and where you’ve done your “homework” ? None of it in context – just blurbs. Just formatted differently, all neatly rowed out? :lol:

    Anarchist420
    Platinum Member

    Newt Gingrich’s liberal, pro-spending, anti-states’ rights, pro-abortion record
    http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?p=32560455

  • Grace

    JunkerGeorg @ 29

    “You state: “While many Republican voters assess Romney on the basis of his past record (and religion?) and have their doubts, will they do their homework on Newt’s record too, or just go on subjective impressions of him by his impressive rhetoric and/or that simple desperation to find a viable alternative to Romney?”

    So this is where you found your list, and where you’ve done your “homework” ? None of it in context – just blurbs. Just formatted differently, all neatly rowed out? :lol:

    Anarchist420
    Platinum Member

    Newt Gingrich’s liberal, pro-spending, anti-states’ rights, pro-abortion record
    http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?p=32560455

  • Grace

    JunkerGeorg @ 29

    Lets take the last remark that was made in your post @ 29 and then tie it to what was said by Gingrich and WHY.

    From your post @ 29 10/07/2011 – He said he’d ignore the Supreme Court if need be.

    October 7, 2011 6:13 PM
    Gingrich: I’d ignore Supreme Court if need be
    By
    Stephanie Condon
    ______an excerpt from article:

    “I would instruct the national security officials in a Gingrich administration to ignore the recent decisions of the Supreme Court on national security matters,” he said, citing actions President Franklin Roosevelt took against German “saboteurs.”

    Just as President Abraham Lincoln was inspired to act against the Dred Scott decision, Gingrich said, “one of the major reasons I am running” for president is the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals’ 2002 ruling that the phrase “one nation under God” in the Pledge of Allegiance was unconstitutional. The ruling was later overturned.

    http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20117504-503544.html

    Do your ‘homework, and then get back to us as what each and every one of this blurbs mean, and links to back it up.

  • Grace

    JunkerGeorg @ 29

    Lets take the last remark that was made in your post @ 29 and then tie it to what was said by Gingrich and WHY.

    From your post @ 29 10/07/2011 – He said he’d ignore the Supreme Court if need be.

    October 7, 2011 6:13 PM
    Gingrich: I’d ignore Supreme Court if need be
    By
    Stephanie Condon
    ______an excerpt from article:

    “I would instruct the national security officials in a Gingrich administration to ignore the recent decisions of the Supreme Court on national security matters,” he said, citing actions President Franklin Roosevelt took against German “saboteurs.”

    Just as President Abraham Lincoln was inspired to act against the Dred Scott decision, Gingrich said, “one of the major reasons I am running” for president is the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals’ 2002 ruling that the phrase “one nation under God” in the Pledge of Allegiance was unconstitutional. The ruling was later overturned.

    http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20117504-503544.html

    Do your ‘homework, and then get back to us as what each and every one of this blurbs mean, and links to back it up.

  • Grace

    JunkerGeorg @ 29

    Or is this the site you used? Read what rambone wrote:

    11-09-2011 04:11 PM #1
    rambone

    http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?329010-Comprehensive-list-of-Newt-Gingrich-positions

  • Grace

    JunkerGeorg @ 29

    Or is this the site you used? Read what rambone wrote:

    11-09-2011 04:11 PM #1
    rambone

    http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?329010-Comprehensive-list-of-Newt-Gingrich-positions

  • helen

    Grace @28
    Perry and Newt are clear winners!

    God save the United States, even though we won’t deserve it!

    [Perry's most notable college accomplishment was to be an Aggie yell leader, Grace.]

  • helen

    Grace @28
    Perry and Newt are clear winners!

    God save the United States, even though we won’t deserve it!

    [Perry's most notable college accomplishment was to be an Aggie yell leader, Grace.]

  • Grace

    helen @33

    I gotta hand it to ya girl, you have a problem with this one, and it’s serious. I didn’t know success was connected to becoming a “yell leader” but if that’s true, I want every male in my family to get with it, wear the sweater, learn to yell and toss those babes in the air. Whew, football just became more interesting!

    “The Yell Leaders use a variety of hand signals, called “pass-backs,” to direct and intensify the crowds. One of the most notable former Aggie Yell Leaders is Texas Governor Rick Perry.”

    More info…………

    “The Yell Leader tradition dates to 1907. According to A&M lore, the Aggies were being soundly defeated and a large number of women who had taken the train from Texas Woman’s University in Denton were threatening to leave. The upperclassmen ordered the freshmen to find a way to keep the women entertained. Several freshmen snuck into a maintenance closet and changed into white coveralls. They then began leading the crowd in yells and telling jokes from the track in front of the stands. It was an instant hit and was quickly incorporated into the gameday repertoire for the Aggies. However, the freshmen became a little too popular with the ladies and “it was decided that only upperclassmen would be allowed to participate in this entertainment in the future.” While usually a position held by members of the Corps of Cadets, non-Corps students have been elected to the position. Ricky Wood, class of 2001, became the first non-corps Head Yell Leader in 2000-2001.

    In the early 1990s, the student body elected its first African American yell leader, Ronnie McDonald, Class of 1993. In 1999, McDonald became the youngest African American to become a county judge in the history of Texas. ] Arouna “Boo Boo” Davies Jr., Class of 2002, became the second African American yell leader. Neither were members of the Corps of Cadets.”

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aggie_Yell_Leaders

    Perry has had quite a career, of course there are more than enough jealous males, and females, just like there was at A&M – Envy is a hard road to walk, so many walk down that path, never realizing that if they worked on their on life, they wouldn’t have time to find fault with a guy who probably had more fun than most guys in college…. pranks and yells – WOO HOO!

  • Grace

    helen @33

    I gotta hand it to ya girl, you have a problem with this one, and it’s serious. I didn’t know success was connected to becoming a “yell leader” but if that’s true, I want every male in my family to get with it, wear the sweater, learn to yell and toss those babes in the air. Whew, football just became more interesting!

    “The Yell Leaders use a variety of hand signals, called “pass-backs,” to direct and intensify the crowds. One of the most notable former Aggie Yell Leaders is Texas Governor Rick Perry.”

    More info…………

    “The Yell Leader tradition dates to 1907. According to A&M lore, the Aggies were being soundly defeated and a large number of women who had taken the train from Texas Woman’s University in Denton were threatening to leave. The upperclassmen ordered the freshmen to find a way to keep the women entertained. Several freshmen snuck into a maintenance closet and changed into white coveralls. They then began leading the crowd in yells and telling jokes from the track in front of the stands. It was an instant hit and was quickly incorporated into the gameday repertoire for the Aggies. However, the freshmen became a little too popular with the ladies and “it was decided that only upperclassmen would be allowed to participate in this entertainment in the future.” While usually a position held by members of the Corps of Cadets, non-Corps students have been elected to the position. Ricky Wood, class of 2001, became the first non-corps Head Yell Leader in 2000-2001.

    In the early 1990s, the student body elected its first African American yell leader, Ronnie McDonald, Class of 1993. In 1999, McDonald became the youngest African American to become a county judge in the history of Texas. ] Arouna “Boo Boo” Davies Jr., Class of 2002, became the second African American yell leader. Neither were members of the Corps of Cadets.”

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aggie_Yell_Leaders

    Perry has had quite a career, of course there are more than enough jealous males, and females, just like there was at A&M – Envy is a hard road to walk, so many walk down that path, never realizing that if they worked on their on life, they wouldn’t have time to find fault with a guy who probably had more fun than most guys in college…. pranks and yells – WOO HOO!

  • JunkerGeorg

    @Grace,

    Actually, the source wasn’t any RP site, but thank you for the link!!!! :) I actually just got the source as an email from a friend, who didn’t cite a link. But so what? I read it over and shared it not as a 26 volume Warren Commission report, but simply as a concise summary/list/timeline of his record to get the ball rolling for anyone in the process of doing their homework on him now that he is rising in the polls. Also, it serves to prompt people to ask the question of whether a “conservative”-sounding candidate is also “constitutional” in his views on foreign/domestic policy. (Granted, the Republican party hasn’t bothered to ask that question since Barry Goldwater, so perhaps it doesn’t matter to anyone else.)

    No doubt, as you say, all of the points I chose to cite from my source should be verified for accuracy (just like ANY media source for ANY thing about ANY one, even media sources you use Grace, like the one you’ve inaccurately cited), but why should the source matter if it is verifiably accurate? So you cite a Ron Paul site, as if to suggest its points must therefore be false, totally concocted by some Ron Paul supporter out of thin air? (Because, after all, anything Ron Paul or what his followers say must be lie concocted out of thin air). Are you sure there aren’t other sources sharing the same thing, just as I received it before passing it on?

    And Grace, not only doing your homework, but doing your homework well, is also a point to mention. For example, your attempted “gotcha” quote to me from a portion of that CBS news article quoting Gingrich’s comments regarding the Supreme court does NOTHING to disprove the last bullett point in that list I shared, namely, that “he would ignore the Supreme Court if need be.” How is that not accurate based on what he was quoted to say in that article? (e.g., “”I would instruct the national security officials in a Gingrich administration to ignore the recent decisions of the Supreme Court on national security matters,” he said, citing actions President Franklin Roosevelt took against German “saboteurs.”") Sorry if you don’t like it Grace, or don’t like that it is “just” a bullett point and not a voluminous statement with 20 links behind it, but it was accurate. Do I think the Supreme Court should abide by the Constitution? Yes, that would be nice. Nevertheless, shouldn’t it rather be a matter for congress, rather than a president decide such?

    Overall, I think it is a concise, helpful list of points/timeline on Gingrich’s record that is worth sharing, if for no other reason than to get the ball rolling on the homework needing to be done on him, given he is climbing the polls. Some may like those points about him, others may not. So far I haven’t found anything that isn’t verifiable, and arguably, neither have you Grace. Nice try though. :)

    Believe it or not, I don’t think any of the nominees is perfect, including Ron Paul. In fact, given Ron Paul will never win the nomination (thanks to the GOP), Gingrich would be my choice, at least at this point on my “homework” on him and the rest of the candidates. (I’ll make sure to submit my homework to you Grace for approval next time.)

    By the way, have you spoken to Rick Perry to make sure he is doing his homework too, or do you have a homeworked source which proves he simply forgot something as simple-yet-significant as the three federal departments he wished to cut, as in desperation he then turned to RON PAUL of all people for help!!!! :)

  • JunkerGeorg

    @Grace,

    Actually, the source wasn’t any RP site, but thank you for the link!!!! :) I actually just got the source as an email from a friend, who didn’t cite a link. But so what? I read it over and shared it not as a 26 volume Warren Commission report, but simply as a concise summary/list/timeline of his record to get the ball rolling for anyone in the process of doing their homework on him now that he is rising in the polls. Also, it serves to prompt people to ask the question of whether a “conservative”-sounding candidate is also “constitutional” in his views on foreign/domestic policy. (Granted, the Republican party hasn’t bothered to ask that question since Barry Goldwater, so perhaps it doesn’t matter to anyone else.)

    No doubt, as you say, all of the points I chose to cite from my source should be verified for accuracy (just like ANY media source for ANY thing about ANY one, even media sources you use Grace, like the one you’ve inaccurately cited), but why should the source matter if it is verifiably accurate? So you cite a Ron Paul site, as if to suggest its points must therefore be false, totally concocted by some Ron Paul supporter out of thin air? (Because, after all, anything Ron Paul or what his followers say must be lie concocted out of thin air). Are you sure there aren’t other sources sharing the same thing, just as I received it before passing it on?

    And Grace, not only doing your homework, but doing your homework well, is also a point to mention. For example, your attempted “gotcha” quote to me from a portion of that CBS news article quoting Gingrich’s comments regarding the Supreme court does NOTHING to disprove the last bullett point in that list I shared, namely, that “he would ignore the Supreme Court if need be.” How is that not accurate based on what he was quoted to say in that article? (e.g., “”I would instruct the national security officials in a Gingrich administration to ignore the recent decisions of the Supreme Court on national security matters,” he said, citing actions President Franklin Roosevelt took against German “saboteurs.”") Sorry if you don’t like it Grace, or don’t like that it is “just” a bullett point and not a voluminous statement with 20 links behind it, but it was accurate. Do I think the Supreme Court should abide by the Constitution? Yes, that would be nice. Nevertheless, shouldn’t it rather be a matter for congress, rather than a president decide such?

    Overall, I think it is a concise, helpful list of points/timeline on Gingrich’s record that is worth sharing, if for no other reason than to get the ball rolling on the homework needing to be done on him, given he is climbing the polls. Some may like those points about him, others may not. So far I haven’t found anything that isn’t verifiable, and arguably, neither have you Grace. Nice try though. :)

    Believe it or not, I don’t think any of the nominees is perfect, including Ron Paul. In fact, given Ron Paul will never win the nomination (thanks to the GOP), Gingrich would be my choice, at least at this point on my “homework” on him and the rest of the candidates. (I’ll make sure to submit my homework to you Grace for approval next time.)

    By the way, have you spoken to Rick Perry to make sure he is doing his homework too, or do you have a homeworked source which proves he simply forgot something as simple-yet-significant as the three federal departments he wished to cut, as in desperation he then turned to RON PAUL of all people for help!!!! :)

  • Grace

    JunkerGeorg @ 35

    The POINT BEING you did not look up the information you provided from either an email, or a blog on the web. You just copy pasted it without doing your “homework” – as you flipped out @ 29

    “While many Republican voters assess Romney on the basis of his past record (and religion?) and have their doubts, will they do their homework on Newt’s record too, or just go on subjective impressions of him by his impressive rhetoric and/or that simple desperation to find a viable alternative to Romney?”

    That which is BOLDED is exactly what you did. I have looked up some of this so called “record” – it’s convaluted and tangled, to say the least. You may not like Gingrich, but copy pasting an email is, well…… before checking out the references.

    I do give my sources, I give LINKS, references to news reports, public agencies, etc, and Scripture -

  • Grace

    JunkerGeorg @ 35

    The POINT BEING you did not look up the information you provided from either an email, or a blog on the web. You just copy pasted it without doing your “homework” – as you flipped out @ 29

    “While many Republican voters assess Romney on the basis of his past record (and religion?) and have their doubts, will they do their homework on Newt’s record too, or just go on subjective impressions of him by his impressive rhetoric and/or that simple desperation to find a viable alternative to Romney?”

    That which is BOLDED is exactly what you did. I have looked up some of this so called “record” – it’s convaluted and tangled, to say the least. You may not like Gingrich, but copy pasting an email is, well…… before checking out the references.

    I do give my sources, I give LINKS, references to news reports, public agencies, etc, and Scripture -

  • Grace

    JunkerGeorg @ 35

    YOU WROTE: “Believe it or not, I don’t think any of the nominees is perfect, including Ron Paul. In fact, given Ron Paul will never win the nomination (thanks to the GOP), Gingrich would be my choice, at least at this point on my “homework” on him and the rest of the candidates. (I’ll make sure to submit my homework to you Grace for approval next time.)

    Awww – just be a big boy and do it! I don’t have time nor the interest to “check” all the stuff people copy paste from blogs and emails on this blog. :lol: and then lean the other way when it doesn’t work out.

  • Grace

    JunkerGeorg @ 35

    YOU WROTE: “Believe it or not, I don’t think any of the nominees is perfect, including Ron Paul. In fact, given Ron Paul will never win the nomination (thanks to the GOP), Gingrich would be my choice, at least at this point on my “homework” on him and the rest of the candidates. (I’ll make sure to submit my homework to you Grace for approval next time.)

    Awww – just be a big boy and do it! I don’t have time nor the interest to “check” all the stuff people copy paste from blogs and emails on this blog. :lol: and then lean the other way when it doesn’t work out.

  • JunkerGeorg

    @Grace,

    Yeah, I’m sure sorry about Rick Perry too, hun. Really I am. :)

  • JunkerGeorg

    @Grace,

    Yeah, I’m sure sorry about Rick Perry too, hun. Really I am. :)

  • JunkerGeorg

    @Grace, #36,

    That which is BOLDED is exactly what you did. I have looked up some of this so called “record” – it’s convaluted and tangled, to say the least. You may not like Gingrich, but copy pasting an email is, well…… before checking out the references.
    ——–

    Wow. That is a mighty high horse you’re sitting on! (i.e., “I do give my sources, I give LINKS, references to news reports, public agencies, etc, and Scripture”.) Um, how is that any different from what anyone else does on a blog? So, what if the new reports you reference are themselves inaccurate on the sources they quote? Not that such EVER would happen with political candidates. No. Never! At least not with “Sweet Rick”.)

    Unless you have a direct line to God like Perry and Cain supposedly do, you’re not anymore infallible than anyone else on here. First, you’re assertion that I simply copied/pasted something I received without editing/cutting out much which was merely subjective conjecture before sharing it is as untrue as it is unverifiable. What I supplied was pretty concise. How tangled? How “convaluted”? (or did you mean, “convoluted?”) Oh, wait, as you say, you “don’t have time nor the interest” to point that out…..as you then “lean the other way” in retreat on your high horse when you’re called out on it.

    No, it would appear you love Perry and like Gingrich more than myself, I hit a nerve, you spurred, and your horse kicked. :) But hey, all is forgiven, at least on my end. Moving on…

  • JunkerGeorg

    @Grace, #36,

    That which is BOLDED is exactly what you did. I have looked up some of this so called “record” – it’s convaluted and tangled, to say the least. You may not like Gingrich, but copy pasting an email is, well…… before checking out the references.
    ——–

    Wow. That is a mighty high horse you’re sitting on! (i.e., “I do give my sources, I give LINKS, references to news reports, public agencies, etc, and Scripture”.) Um, how is that any different from what anyone else does on a blog? So, what if the new reports you reference are themselves inaccurate on the sources they quote? Not that such EVER would happen with political candidates. No. Never! At least not with “Sweet Rick”.)

    Unless you have a direct line to God like Perry and Cain supposedly do, you’re not anymore infallible than anyone else on here. First, you’re assertion that I simply copied/pasted something I received without editing/cutting out much which was merely subjective conjecture before sharing it is as untrue as it is unverifiable. What I supplied was pretty concise. How tangled? How “convaluted”? (or did you mean, “convoluted?”) Oh, wait, as you say, you “don’t have time nor the interest” to point that out…..as you then “lean the other way” in retreat on your high horse when you’re called out on it.

    No, it would appear you love Perry and like Gingrich more than myself, I hit a nerve, you spurred, and your horse kicked. :) But hey, all is forgiven, at least on my end. Moving on…

  • Grace

    JunkerGeorg @ 39

    YOU WROTE: “No, it would appear you love Perry and like Gingrich more than myself, I hit a nerve, you spurred, and your horse kicked”

    No nerve, no horse – Copy pasting something without knowing what you’re talking about isn’t smart – it doesn’t have anything to with horses, but it does take “nerve” to try and squirm your way out of a tight moment –

    Sleep tight – LOL

  • Grace

    JunkerGeorg @ 39

    YOU WROTE: “No, it would appear you love Perry and like Gingrich more than myself, I hit a nerve, you spurred, and your horse kicked”

    No nerve, no horse – Copy pasting something without knowing what you’re talking about isn’t smart – it doesn’t have anything to with horses, but it does take “nerve” to try and squirm your way out of a tight moment –

    Sleep tight – LOL

  • steve

    Ron Paul is the one with the most intact integrity but I don’t see the Republican machine ever voting him past the primaries. I have some very fundamental disagreements with him but at least I don’t feel like he’s lying to me _all_ the time. And he’s certainly better than the O.

  • steve

    Ron Paul is the one with the most intact integrity but I don’t see the Republican machine ever voting him past the primaries. I have some very fundamental disagreements with him but at least I don’t feel like he’s lying to me _all_ the time. And he’s certainly better than the O.

  • JunkerGeorg

    @Steve,

    I’m glad to hear that your disagreements with RP are “fundamental” in nature (i.e., the interpretation/application of the US Constitution in domestic/foreign policy, monetary policies/macro-economic theories, etc.). Thank you for you that! Would that all the candidates were made to debate not merely on their actual policy views, but first and foremost on the fundamental principles (or lack thereof) which undergird/shape their policy views. I’m honestly curious to know which fundamentals you take issue with–I don’t say that as challenge, trying to provoke debate, or that I would retort with ad hominem, let alone expecting you to provide footnotes/links for anything you say or food for thought you share. After all, this is simply a blog, not articles written for the Associated Press. ;)

  • JunkerGeorg

    @Steve,

    I’m glad to hear that your disagreements with RP are “fundamental” in nature (i.e., the interpretation/application of the US Constitution in domestic/foreign policy, monetary policies/macro-economic theories, etc.). Thank you for you that! Would that all the candidates were made to debate not merely on their actual policy views, but first and foremost on the fundamental principles (or lack thereof) which undergird/shape their policy views. I’m honestly curious to know which fundamentals you take issue with–I don’t say that as challenge, trying to provoke debate, or that I would retort with ad hominem, let alone expecting you to provide footnotes/links for anything you say or food for thought you share. After all, this is simply a blog, not articles written for the Associated Press. ;)