Forum Thread

Lake Martin Topics

(Lake Martin Specific)

111,143 messages

Updated 4/25/2024 7:30:23 PM

Off-Topic

Lakes Online Forum

83,605 messages

Updated 4/25/2024 9:33:24 PM

Boat Maintenance

Lakes Online Forum

5,193 messages

Updated 4/3/2024 3:47:36 AM

Lake Martin Fishing

(Lake Martin Specific)

4,169 messages

Updated 4/16/2024 3:16:57 AM

Jokes

Lakes Online Forum

4,169 messages

Updated 4/15/2024 11:05:05 PM

Sports

Lakes Online Forum

4,260 messages

Updated 3/24/2024 9:24:45 AM

Grilling & Recipes

Lakes Online Forum

2,976 messages

Updated 3/20/2024 11:53:43 PM

Lake Martin SCUBA

(Lake Martin Specific)

169 messages

Updated 5/31/2023 1:39:35 PM

Tallapoosa River Topics

Lakes Online Forum

98 messages

Updated 4/15/2024 1:00:58 AM

Forum Usage Rules

Name:	lotowner -	Reply
Subject:	Can't Argue With Ann C
Date:	1/26/2012 6:27:20 AM

Re-eLeCT OBAMA: VOTe NeWT!

January 25, 2012

To talk with Gingrich supporters is to enter a world where words have no meaning. They denounce Mitt Romney as a candidate being pushed on them by "the establishment" -- with "the establishment" defined as anyone who supports Romney or doesn't support Newt.

Gingrich may have spent his entire life in Washington and be so much of an insider that, as Jon Stewart says, "when Washington gets its prostate checked, it tickles [Newt]," but he is deemed the rebellious outsider challenging "the establishment" -- because, again, "the establishment" is anyone who opposes Newt.

This is the sort of circular reasoning one normally associates with Democrats, people whom small-town pharmacists refer to as "drug seekers" and Ron Paul supporters.

Newtons claim Romney is a "moderate," and Gingrich the true conservative -- a feat that can be accomplished only by refusing to believe anything Romney says ... and also refusing to believe anything Gingrich says.

-- Romney's one great "flip-flop" is on abortion. (I thought the reason we argued with people about abortion was to try to get them to "flip-flop" on this issue. Sometimes it works!)

Nearly two decades ago, when Romney was trying to defeat champion desecrator of life Sen. Teddy Kennedy, he sought to remove abortion as a campaign issue by declaring that he, too, supported Roe v. Wade.

(Nonetheless, Kennedy ran a campaign commercial against him featuring a Mormon woman complaining that Romney, as a Mormon elder, had pressured her not to have an abortion, but to give the child up for adoption. Are you getting the idea that Massachusetts is different from the rest of America, readers?)

Romney changed his mind on abortion -- not when it was politically advantageous, but when it mattered. As governor of liberal, pro-choice Massachusetts, he vetoed an embryonic stem cell bill and "worked closely" with Massachusetts Citizens for Life. The president of MCL recently issued a statement saying that, "since being elected governor, Mitt Romney has had a consistent commitment to the culture of life."

He didn't defend his changed position by saying he was a "historian," or denounce people who raised the switch as "fundamentally" dishonest asking "absurd" questions, or go back and forth and back and forth. He just said he changed his mind.

Meanwhile, Gingrich, who has run for office only in a small, majority Republican, undoubtedly pro-life congressional district, lobbied President Bush to support embryonic stem cell research.

-- Romney is now the only remaining candidate for president who opposes amnesty for illegals. (ever since President Bush's amnesty plan cratered on the shoals of public opposition, no Republican will ever use the word "amnesty," despite wanting to keep illegals here -- just as Democrats refuse to say "abortion," while supporting every manner of destroying human life.)

Romney supports e-Verify and a fence on the border. As governor he promoted english immersion programs for immigrants, signed an agreement with the federal government allowing state troopers to enforce federal immigration laws, and opposed efforts to give illegal immigrants in-state tuition or driver's licenses.

At the same time, Romney says he'd like to staple a green card to the diploma of every immigrant here on a student visa who gets a higher degree in math or science.

Gingrich supports importing a slave labor force from Mexico under a "guest worker" program and wants to create government "citizen review boards" to grant amnesty on a case-by-case basis (i.e. all at once) to illegal aliens.

-- Romney supports entitlement reform along the lines of the Paul Ryan plan, as he has said plainly, but without histrionics, in the debates.

Just last year, Gingrich went on "Meet the Press" and called Ryan's plan -- supported by nearly every House Republican -- "right-wing social engineering."

He apologized for those remarks, then took back his apology, still later doubled down, calling the Ryan plan "suicide," and now -- currently, but it could change any minute -- Gingrich supports Ryan's entitlement reform efforts.

For the latest updates on Newt's position on the Ryan plan, go to http//twitter.com/#whatcheapshotgrandstandymovewillworknow?

-- As for crony capitalism, Romney made all his money in the private sector by his own diligence and talent -- even giving away all the money he inherited from his parents. He's never lived in Washington or traded on access to government officials.

Meanwhile, without the federal government, Gingrich would be penniless. He has been in Washington since the '70s, first as a congressman, then becoming a rich man on the basis of having been a congressman.

Most egregiously, he took $1.6 million to shill for Freddie Mac, one of the two institutions directly responsible for the housing crash that caused the financial collapse. (Or one of three, if you consider Barney Frank an institution.)

If the tea party stands for anything, it stands in absolute opposition to government insiders shoring up Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac at the very time those institutions were blowing up the economy.

-- Romney could not be more forceful in saying he will issue a 50-state waiver to Obamacare his first day in office and then seek its formal repeal. Whether you like a state-wide insurance mandate or not, it's a world of difference when the federal government does it. Conservatives, having read the Constitution, ought to understand this.

It was on account of the difference between state and federal powers that the Supreme Court overturned the federal Violence Against Women Act. The court was not endorsing rape, but reminding us that states make laws about rape, not Congress.

To act as if Obamacare is the same thing as "Romneycare" is just a word game, on the order of acting like a "gun" has the same properties as a "gunny sack," or "fire" is the same thing as a "firefly."

Romney supported the idea of other states doing something along the lines of his health care bill, but always opposed insurance mandates from the federal government (just as I oppose the federal government issuing general laws about rape, but support state laws against rape.)

For those of you who still think Romneycare is the worst possible sin a Republican candidate could commit -- even worse than taking money from Freddie Mac as it destroyed the economy -- that doesn't help Gingrich: He supported Romneycare.

(While we're on the subject, the nation's leading conservative think tank, The Heritage Foundation, helped draft Romneycare. Indeed, Bob Moffit, Heritage's senior fellow on health care issues, can be seen in the picture of the bill-signing ceremony, standing proudly behind Romney.)

But Gingrich did more than support Romneycare. As former senator Rick Santorum has pointed out, Gingrich supported a FeDeRAL individual mandate to purchase health insurance from 1993 until five minutes ago -- i.e., at least until a "Meet the Press" appearance just last May.

Asked by Maria Bartiromo in the CNBC debate last November to explain what he would do to fix health care, Newt attacked the question as "absurd" and said he would need a "several-hour period" to answer it.

In a world where words have meaning, Mitt Romney is not the "moderate" in this race. He is the most conservative candidate still standing, with the possible exception of Rick Santorum, who is bad on illegal immigration. (Santorum voted in the Senate against even the voluntary use of e-Verify by employers, which means he doesn't want to do anything about illegal immigration at all.)

Romney is "moderate" only in demeanor -- which is just another word game. His positions are more conservative than Gingrich's, but he doesn't scare people like Gingrich does. Ronald Reagan and Jesse Helms were moderate in demeanor, too. No one would call them political moderates.

Romney is the most electable candidate not only because it will be nearly impossible for the media to demonize this self-made Mormon square, devoted to his wife and church, but precisely because he is the most conservative candidate.

Conservatism is an electable quality. Hotheaded arrogance is neither conservative nor attractive to voters.

Name:	lotowner -	Reply
Subject:	Can't Argue With Ann C
Date:	1/26/2012 6:32:39 AM

Good video on Newt's opinion of Reganism.

URL:

Name:	MartiniMan -	Reply
Subject:	Can't Argue With Ann C
Date:	1/26/2012 11:31:03 AM

i really think why Newt has gained some traction is for one reason....his debate performances. People want a fighter and they love when he takes it to the libtard media types like Juan Williams or John King. Unfortunately his debating ability will not be what drives votes in the general election. The Teleprompter in Chief is only going to participate in one or maybe two very scripted debates moderated by left wing nut government media types that will be overtly supporting el Presidente. The general will be about ads on tv, radio and direct mail and it will be incredibly ugly and Newt will take a beating. i will say that for every Ann Coulter who makes a very good argument for not supporting Newt there are other conservative pundits making equally valid arguments for not supporting Mitt. i do agree with her that the much despised "establishment" is somehow defined as those that support Mitt. However, if you look at the history of disastrous GOP presidential nominees (Dole, McCain, etc.) there is no doubt they were selected and supported by the GOP establishment and we are rightly wary of whoever they endorse. So in a bizarre way, having someone like McCain endorse Mitt actually hurts him. As for me, only one thing matters to me and that is picking the candidate with the best chance of defeating Oblamer......it is just that important to saving this country from disaster. i am still not certain who that is but i am down to Mitt or Newt and am currently leaning toward Mitt.

Name:	lakngulf -	Reply
Subject:	Can't Argue With Ann C
Date:	1/26/2012 2:24:17 PM

I am +1 with you leaning toward Mitt. Although I don't think he has a chance, Santorum won me over the other night when he said we never should have bailed out the financial institution crooks. I thought Bush was wrong to do it and Oblamer followed suit, and then some.

Name:	MartiniMan -	Reply
Subject:	Now Bob Dole is bashing Newt
Date:	1/26/2012 5:49:27 PM

In yet another plus for Newt's anti-GOP establishment campaign for the nomination, Bob Dole is hosing him. Don't these guys get it? Losers like McCain or Dole coming out for Mitt is exactly the wrong approach to capturing more primary votes. We have seen what happens when the guy whose turn it is gets the nod. With GHWB we get Clinton's first term, with Dole we get Clinton's second term and with McCain with get Jimmy Carter's second term.

Name:	buzzbuster -	Reply
Subject:	Can't Argue With Ann C
Date:	1/27/2012 12:18:06 AM

I can argue with the wind bag Ann C. but that is a waste of time. I will vote for Newt before I would Mitt and Rick Santorum Is looking better and better. Whoever gets the nomination is my man against the O my god not again present occupier of the white house. People put this stuff out there hoping they will not vote for Newt but look out and make up your own minds. There is plenty to watch on the debates to help you think the process through.

Name:	Council Roc Doc -	Reply
Subject:	Can't Argue With Ann C
Date:	1/27/2012 9:32:15 AM

To be honest, find me one issue that Romney is not on both sides of. Blind trusts last night that he knows nothing about? Give me a break. You direct the trustee of a blind trust where to invest, avoiding conflicts of interest etc. To hear him say he had no clue what was invested in the blind trust in balderdash. If a politician has no legs to stand on does that make him a snake?

Name:	lakngulf -	Reply
Subject:	Can't Argue With Ann C
Date:	1/27/2012 9:51:43 AM

But he hasn't change his mind since he changed his mind. If Santorum cannot get the nomination, which is a long shot, then Mitten is the best chance to defeat Oblamer. Not a good choice but the best of the alternatives. Newt had some momentum but the Freddie-Frannie thing is bringing him down.

Quick Links
Lake Martin News
Lake Martin Photos
Lake Martin Videos