Out of all the candidates running for the Republican nomination, Ron Paul is the only one going all out. His campaign is bringing out these ads faster than Newt Gingrich can tell you the name of his present wife.
The new ad is called “Serial Hypocrisy,” and in it, Gingrich, the present leader in the Republican race who is now trying to sell himself as a Washington outsider tagged to clean up the Washington game, is heard saying, “if you’ve been Speaker of the House, you’re always an insider.”
But pay no mind to the 84 ethics violations brought against Newt Gingrich when he was Speaker of the House. Christian Conservatives – Newt’s your man!
We’ve shown you previous examples where the Teaparty and some Republicans have stepped out of their secretive shell and have decided that bringing their racism out into the spotlight, will rally others to their call.
Today’s example? A Teaparty organization in Hutchinson Kansas called Patriot Freedom Alliance. This group of “patriots” decided that comparing the President of the United States to a skunk is the patriotic thing to do. They posted the comparison on their website, then after the expected backlash that apparently surprised the group, the depiction was removed from their website.
Here is the wisdom of these “Patriots” –
“The skunk has replaced the eagle as the new symbol for the President. It is half black, half white and everything it does, stinks.”
But the group is still defending the skunk anology. One Teaparty member, Chuck Sankey, said that Sarah Palin, the 2008 Republican vice presidential candidate, had been the target of worse insults than what’s on their website.
Well – thanks for your contribution “Patriots,” we are now a better nation because of your uplifting message.
In an attempt at a smackdown aimed at Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich – the two leaders in the Republican nomination race – Rick Perry tried defending his limited knowledge of basic political science when he said that Americans don’t want a robot for President.
Perry went on Fox News to try and explain why he couldn’t remember Sonia Sotomayor‘s name, and why he thought there were eight Supreme Court Judges on the bench.
“I don’t have[sic] memorized all of the Supreme Court Judges,” Perry said. He continue, saying “Americans are not looking for a robot that can spit out the name of every Supreme Court justice, or someone that’s gonna be perfect in every way.”
True. Americans aren’t looking for a robot, but we do want a president…with a brain.
Mitt Romney wants you to see him as an average man. After tarnishing that ‘average man’ image in the debate on Saturday, where he offered Rick Perry $10,000.00 on a bet, Romney is now trying to revise the public’s view of him. But is it too late? Can Romney flip-flop one more time to save his campaign?
In the last debate, a viewer asked the candidates if they ever had to give up any of life’s necessities to make ends meet. In today’s tough economic times, the question was and is very valid. The average voter wants a president who they can identify with, someone who can relate to their daily struggles. All the other Republican contenders in Saturday’s debate had a story to tell where they “struggled”, but when it became Mitt Romney’s turn to relate, the multi-millionaire couldn’t come up with any such experience.
“I didn’t grow up poor,” Romney answered. “If somebody is looking for somebody who has that background, I am not that person.” This admission by Romney came on the same night he offered Rick Perry the $10,000.00 bet… like it was nothing… pocket change!
After the debate, Romney saw how inappropriate his responses were. He told reporters that his wife came to him and said she enjoyed the debate, but his bet offer was not his strong point.
And sure enough, that Sunday Mitt Romney had to do what Mitt Romney does best – the flip-flop.
Asked by another voter in Iowa the very same question he previously answered, “I didn’t grow up poor,” to, Romney magically did remembered a poor moment in his life when he was 19 years old and went to France to do missionary work.
Living on no more than $110 a month in France – which Romney said was the equivalent of $500 or $600 in today’s dollars – the former Massachusetts governor said he learned to live simply when he left for France in 1966 at the age of 19, stretching those dollars to cover food, clothing and rent over two and a half years in France. He lived in a series of apartments with little or no plumbing or amenities like refrigeration.
“You’re not living high on the hog at that level,” he said. “A number of the apartments that I lived in when I was there didn’t have toilets – we had instead the little pads on the ground – OK, you know how that works, pull – there was a chain behind you with kind of a bucket, bucket affair. I had not experienced one of those in the United States.”
Romney said he and his fellow missionaries showered once a week at a facility where you could pay a few francs to bathe – “Or if we were got lucky, we actually bought a hose and would hold it there on the sink … and wash ourselves that way.”
Let’s see… a debate on Saturday, where he answered he didn’t grow up poor, so couldn’t share any moments of hardship, then less than 24 hrs later, he was so poor, he was only able to shower once a week and had no toilets. From one extreme to anther in the span of 24 hours?
This has to be a record flip-flop… even for Mitt Romney.
So you missed the Republican Debate last night? Have no fear. This video gives you a full rundown of all the highlights and low points of the debate. And for sections of the debates not shown in the video, well, just fill those parts in with the usual “repeal obamacare,” “this president can’t lead,” and “I understand how to create jobs, Obama does not.”
That’s it, the entire debate. You didn’t miss much.
But do pay close attention to the $10,000 bet Mitt Romney tried to get Rick Perry to agree to. That bet is bound to come back to bite Romney in the future. Just for perspective, most middle class families have to work for months to see $10,000. Yep, that bet was not a good look for Romney… pure insensitivity on his part.
President Obama used his weekly address to tell the American people that things will be better if everyone gets a fair shot at the resources necessary for success. He points out that the rich already have a multitude of lawyers and lobbyists in Washington working on their behalf.
That’s why he nominated Richard Cordray to head up a brand new consumer protection watchdog agency, whose sole purpose is protecting consumers from the unscrupulous predatory ways of Corporation. But surprise, Republicans have blocked Cordray’s nomination too.
The President.
So I refuse to take “no” for an answer. Financial institutions have plenty of high-powered lawyers and lobbyists looking out for them. It’s time consumers had someone on their side.
Republicans have also stood in the way of a balanced plan to extend the payroll tax cut for working families – and the President made it clear he believes that elected officials should not go home for the holidays until they’ve done what is right for the American people and for the economy by extending this tax cut.
How on earth are you trying to be the president of the United States, but you don’t know how many Judges there are on the United States Supreme Court? How is that even possible? And who in their right minds would support a presidential candidate who continually shows they don’t have even the most basic civil knowledge?
But then again, if your name is Rick Perry and your base is the Republican voter, then you qualify to run for the presidency if you can prove you know how to spell your first name.
The video below shows Perry, a Republican candidate trying to get his party’s nomination to run against President Obama in 2012, giving an interview to the Des Moines Register editorial board in Iowa earlier today. While answering a question from an interviewer, Perry is heard referring to the “eight unelected and frankly unaccountable judges” in the US Supreme Court. Everyone and their mama knows there are nine Justices, everyone that is, except Perry.
In the same interview, Perry didn’t know how to pronounce Justice Sonia Sotomayor’s name, and had to be helped by one of the questioners.
If no one wants to play with you, then why play with yourself?
That’s the question Donald Trump is trying to answer, as just about all the Republican presidential candidates have decided to take their marbles and run, leaving the Donald with Newt Gingrich and Rick Santorum. Trump is now considering cancelling the debate all together.
WASHINGTON – Business mogul Donald Trump said Friday he might scrub a presidential debate that so far has drawn only Newt Gingrich and Rick Santorum.
Trump, the reality television star who has not ruled out an independent White House bid, had hoped for all of the Republican candidates to join in a debate he would moderate Dec. 27 in Iowa. Most have decided not to, leaving only Gingrich, a former House speaker, and Santorum, a former Pennsylvania senator.
“I have to look into it,” Trump told Fox Business Network when asked whether he would host a two-candidate debate.
Trump was most indignant about Minnesota Rep. Michele Bachmann skipping out.
“She came up to see me four times. She would call me and ask me for advice,” Trump said. “She said if she wins, she would like to think about me for the vice presidency. Most importantly, I did a two-hour phone call for her with her people. … And after all that, she announced she was not going to do the debate. It’s called loyalty. How do you do that? It’s amazing to me.”
Historians today question the decisions of Neville Chamberlain, the Prime Minister of Britain during the 1930’s. Mr. Chamberlain wanted to avoid a major conflict with Nazi Germany, so he engaged in what some called, an “appeasement foreign policy,” which many historian believed allowed Hitler to grow too strong, causing mass devastation to the Jewish people
In the case of politics, appeasement is usually used to describe a leader who’s weak on foreign policies, one who prefers to “sell out” instead of standing firm for his/her beliefs.
At a Jewish meeting earlier this week, Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney used the word “appeasement” a total of seven times when describing President Obama’s foreign policies. A well-played attack of the President by Romney, as the word itself brings back a very negative meaning for the Jewish people – a very strong voting block in American politics.
“Internationally, President Obama has adopted an appeasement strategy,” Romney said. “Appeasement betrays a lack of faith in America, in American strength and in America’s future.”
But Romney is not the only Republican candidate using the word to describe President Obama’s foreign policies. Newt Gingrich has said it on a few different occasions. “America is the first business of the State Department,” Gingrich said at a recent meeting,”not appeasing our opponents.” Gingrich also said that he is often worried, and the cause of his worries are “based on a State Department which has consistently engaged in appeasement.”
Yesterday, a White House reporter asked President Obama to respond to the Republicans appeasement claims. His answer, in my view, was classic;
“Ask Osama bin Laden and the 22 out of 30 top al-Qaeda leaders who’ve been taken off the field whether I engage in appeasement –or whoever’s left out there, ask them about that.”
Republicans have no legs to stand on when it comes to foreign policies, and their willful effort to lie to the American people, trying to suggest that President Obama is a weak leader on foreign issues when the opposite is so blatantly obvious, is pure insanity.
You hear it all the time, Ronald Reagan would have done this and Ronald Reagan would have done that. And as you listen to today’s Republicans, you can’t help but wonder if they remember the same Reagan the rest of us do, the guy who actually raised taxes on the American people 11 times during his presidency.
Like the video below, where Ronald Reagan had the audacity to suggest that the rich should pay more in taxes. Statements like this would have been enough to cause today’s Republicans to round up the ‘posse,’ track down the ex president with hound dogs and nail him to a cross with a copy of Grover Norquist’s pledge glued to his forhead.
With Michele Bachmann and Rick Perry officially joining Ron Paul, Mitt Romney and Jon Huntsman in denying reality Television star Donald Trump the chance to sell his new book, December 27th is bound to remind us of The Three Stooges. That’s the day when Rick Santorum joins Newt Gingrich as they answer questions posed by Mr. ‘You’re Fired’ himself.
Mr. no-chance-in-hell-to-win-the-presidency Santorum was just happy to still be on stage talking about anything, no matter where that stage may be. He criticized the other Republican candidates today calling them “hypocrites.”
I agree with Santorum on his description of the others this one time.
“Many of my opponents jockeyed to be the first to fly up to New York and use Donald Trump for a photo op and no doubt try and secure an endorsement,” the former Pennsylvania senator said in a statement. “But when Donald wants to moderate a debate – they refuse to attend. That’s what’s so wrong with politics today – hypocrisy.”
So set your DVR’s and pop some popcorn. On December 27th, gather everyone around the television and tell the young ones about the crazy antics of Moe, Larry and Curley. In fact, show them the crazy antics… we all know Trump needs the ratings.
Welcome to the world of Newt Gingrich and quite frankly, today’s Republican party, where anything and everything is said with one objective in mind – solidifying your misguided, uninformed base.
One of these statements made by Newt Gingrich is an attack on President Obama – what else is new – where Newt tells everyone who cares to listen that President Obama has “kill” jobs since he’s taken office.
“I think the president has now spent three years proving that he kills jobs in energy, he kills jobs in manufacturing, he kills jobs in virtually every part of American life. I mean, notice — the only reason the unemployment rate is going down is because … twice as many people dropped out of the employment pool as the number of jobs were created.”
PolitiFact, a non-partisan, well-respected organization, studied Newt’s claim and found the following
In Energy
During the entire Obama presidency, employment in the oil and gas extraction sector grew by 18,800 jobs, or an increase of 11 percent. Over the same period, jobs in mining declined by 9,200, or 4 percent. Combining the two categories, energy jobs grew by 9,600 jobs, or 2 percent.
Beginning one year into Obama’s presidency, oil and gas extraction jobs increased by 27,500, a rise of 18 percent. Mining jobs grew by 14,900, or 8 percent. Combined, the two sectors increased by 42,400 jobs, or 12 percent.
So over both periods, the energy sector grew in absolute terms — and if you measure beginning in January 2010, the increase has been quite healthy at 12 percent over two years.
In Manufacturing
PolitiFact found that overall, manufacturing jobs decreased since President Obama took office. But the fact checking group also found that this decrease was not a phenomenon that started under President Obama. According to PolitiFact, manufacturing jobs have decreased since 1970.
When compared to past Presidents however, PolitiFact found the following;
So say what you may Newt/Republicans, but when your empty rhetoric settles, the truth will still prevail.
We use cookies to improve your experience on our site. By agreeing to this, we can analyze browsing behavior and unique IDs on this site. Declining or revoking consent may affect certain features.
Functional
Always active
The technical storage or access is strictly necessary for the legitimate purpose of enabling the use of a specific service explicitly requested by the subscriber or user, or for the sole purpose of carrying out the transmission of a communication over an electronic communications network.
Preferences
The technical storage or access is necessary for the legitimate purpose of storing preferences that are not requested by the subscriber or user.
Statistics
The technical storage or access that is used exclusively for statistical purposes.The technical storage or access that is used exclusively for anonymous statistical purposes. Without a subpoena, voluntary compliance on the part of your Internet Service Provider, or additional records from a third party, information stored or retrieved for this purpose alone cannot usually be used to identify you.
Marketing
The technical storage or access is required to create user profiles to send advertising, or to track the user on a website or across several websites for similar marketing purposes.
To provide the best experiences, we use technologies like cookies to store and/or access device information. Consenting to these technologies will allow us to process data such as browsing behavior or unique IDs on this site. Not consenting or withdrawing consent, may adversely affect certain features and functions.
