Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : View from the Center and Left -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Sam who wrote (176874)	11/30/2011 3:19:50 PM
From: Win Smith	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 542208

<i/>Franker than ever as he announced plans to retire from Congress, Barney Frank told Abby Goodnough in The Times that Gingrich was “the single biggest factor” in destroying a Washington culture where the two parties respected each other’s differing views yet still worked together. The thing I remember best is that when the Republicans took over after the '94 election and the "contract on america", the first thing Newt did was scrap the old orientation all new congressmen went through together so he could keep the new Republicans separate from Democrats, lest they happen to notice that their political opponents were human beings. Romney is a mundane opportunist who reverses himself on core issues. Gingrich is a megalomaniacal opportunist who brazenly indulges in the same sins that he rails about to tear down political rivals. I wonder if Karl Rove will sign on with Newt. Same tactics, but the clash of megalomaniacs might be difficult. Rove was pretty good at keeping a low profile, though, so it might work. Republicans have a far greater talent for hypocrisy than easily cowed Democrats do — and no doubt appreciate that in a leader. I really wish that somehow, someday, when they're out of power, the national Democrats would learn from Republicans how to be at least a little obstructionist. They always, always cave. I hate that. Republicans are going to demonize them, regardless. Give them something to bitch about for a change. I was listening to Ed Schulz briefly today, he expressed something I've been thinking- If the Democrats just held together, let the debt/deficit sequestration deal stand and don't cave on the Bush tax cuts expiring, the budget wouldn't look very bad at all. Hey, it could happen, even if the Democrats only held 41 seats in the Senate. Practically speaking, 41 or 49 or even a slim majority of Democratic Senators holding together on that seems improbable. Even if Obama is reelected, I'm not sure he'd hold out for that. He ought to, though.

To: Sam who wrote (176874)	11/30/2011 5:29:06 PM
From: epicure	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 542208

I can't imagine the republicans would let Gingrich win- but if they do, the election will belong to the democrats- barring bizarre 3rd party entrants to the race. First, there are Newt's looks, and his name. Both are horrible. Does anyone believe Americans want president "Newt"? And his looks? Does he look presidential? Not in this century. Not in any century- but at least old uglies like Taft didn't have to contend with TV. Thank goodness Americans are superficial. Then we have his record. It's horrible. And there's so much of it- so many lovely horrible quotes. This is a man only a bagger can love- and even then, only if the bagger holds his nose. Independents? Anyone think they will go for Newty? Not in this lifetime. Then there's his "family" life. What can one say? Is there a more awkward unappealing guy out there when it comes to "family"? Well, maybe Cain- anyone else?