Tag Archives: conservatives

“Serious candidate” Newt Gingrich fails to qualify for Ohio, Missouri primaries due to lack of organization

Flavor-of-the-week and current joke front-runner Newt Gingrich’s campaign has failed to get on the ballot of two key primary states, Ohio and Missouri.

According to the equally loathsome Karl Rove:

Mr. Gingrich has little or no campaign organization in Iowa and most other states. He didn’t file a complete slate of New Hampshire delegates and alternates. He is the only candidate who didn’t qualify for the Missouri primary, and on Wednesday he failed to present enough signatures to get on the ballot in Ohio. Redistricting squabbles may lead the legislature to move the primary to a later date and re-open filing, but it’s still embarrassing to be so poorly organized.

It is embarrassing that Republicans would even give Gingrich a second look just months after his campaign spectacularly collapsed. Not to mention Gingrich’s sordid personal baggage and unethical political career. Does the Republican Party really want Gingrich’s undisciplined brand of chaos and disorganization?

If this keeps up, the Republican Party might soon have to switch their party symbol from an elephant to a goldfish: to represent the mass amnesia and unforgivable memory loss that has afflicted its membership.

Newt Gingrich recently received an endorsement from the Manchester Union-Leader

Newt Gingrich will fit perfectly right in, according to Charles Burris:

Endorsing the arrogant warmongering neocon Newt Gingrich is perfectly consistent for the Manchester Union-Leader, the biggest embarrassment of the Granite State… No one will forget his scurrilous front page editorials, “Kissinger the Kike,” attacking Secretary of State Henry Kissinger, or “Jerry the Jerk,” slandering President Gerald Ford. The paper hasn’t changed its tabloid attack journalism under publisher Joseph McQuaid. Newt will fit in perfectly with this crew of Muslim-hating, un-American fascists.

Ouch.

Though, honestly, this just further proves that partisan Republicans fear Muslims more than they fear the country-collapsing debt spurred by this country’s obsession with freedom-destroying, death-spreading “War on Everything.”

In which case, you could argue that partisan Republicans hate Muslims more than they love America.

Mitt Romney’s tepid poll numbers are a ceiling

Despite months of being crowned the inevitable Republican nominee by the corporate media, Mitt Romney’s polling numbers have been stagnant. With the exception of New Hampshire where he enjoys a 40 percent support, there seems to be a hard ceiling of support all over the country.

Jonathan Bernstein pointed out that Romney’s lackluster numbers does not mean GOP primary voters hate Romney; they are just not passionate about him. So it could be that Romney will consolidate this support and turn that ceiling into a floor.

The thing that is worth noting, however, is the fact that unlike Michelle Bachmann, Rick Perry, and Herman Cain whose poll numbers surged because of increased media coverage, Romney’s numbers have remained tepid despite consistent, overwhelming, and positive media coverage.

I argue that Bachmann, Perry, and Cain’s numbers surged because of increased coverage. It is not until that coverage became overwhelmingly negative due in large part to these candidates’ numerous gaffes that their numbers tanked. If Romney were ever to experience the same level of mocking media scrutiny that Bachmann, Perry, and Cain had to and deservedly suffered, could anyone in the pundit class still say with a straight face that Romney is the “inevitable” nominee?

It is bizarre to me that the conservative GOP base have come to accept Romney’s flip-flops while at the same time harshly condemning the other candidates for doing similar things. Will partisan GOP and principled conservatives play along with the approved corporate media narrative that Romney will be the nominee?

The corporate media intends to be the GOP’s kingmaker with the nomination of Romney… and thus handing the election to Barack Obama.

Ron Paul and liberals’ moral dilemma

A self-labeled liberal at Reddit watched last night’s GOP debate (read my recap and thoughts) in Iowa and he found himself convinced that he might vote for Ron Paul over Barack Obama.

Many of the other responders reminded him than Paul is against a lot of things that progressives hold dear. Obama, they reminded him, is a progressive; Paul’s views regarding Social Security, welfare, and abortion are too extreme.

Myself, I asked him a fair question:

Can you look at yourself in the mirror and honestly say that the fat chance that Ron Paul would single-handedly gut Social Security and all of entitlement spending is morally equivalent to Ron Paul unilaterally stopping the murder of hundreds of thousands of innocent people who are victims of all our wars?

People forget that Social Security and Medicare are laws that Congress (not the president) decides whereas our illegal, unconstitutional wars are unilaterally waged by the president.

Ron Paul cannot end Social Security or Medicare alone, but he can and will end the wars.

I am tired of the argument that the potential of someone’s welfare check being cut is more important than immediately stopping the murders occurring everyday in our name.

We wonder why people in the rest of the world hate us. We are selfish; and we hold welfare checks more important than the lives of those we kill.