Destino Posted April 13, 2005 Share Posted April 13, 2005 Originally posted by rick301 Bill Clinton who is a bigger 'maggot' won 2 terms ... so it can be done. Yeah the "save marriage" moral majority is really going to love Cpt. Infidelity. Not to mention the fact that he CAN NOT pretend to be a moderate because he was a LONG RECORD of right wing extremism. Pressing your wife to sign divorce papers while in the hospital for cancer isn't the sign of a leader. Doing it because "She isn't young enough or pretty enough to be the President's wife." is just disgusting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkinsHokieFan Posted April 13, 2005 Share Posted April 13, 2005 The people who say he is polorazing are correct, that would be his flaw. I am not saying I think he would get elected or nominated, however it will have been a full decade since he stepped down as house leader and he has always had intruiging fresh ideas which require people to take a look. Do I think he would make it to a general election? Probably not. Too much in his past. However time seems to heal in this country. And the difference between 1998 and 2008 isn't just 10 years, politically thats a century Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lckelsey4 Posted April 13, 2005 Share Posted April 13, 2005 I'd be surprised if more than fifteen percent of this country would even remember who he was until the media reminded them. I'd be surprised if fifteen percent of the people who voted for kerry could even remember his name. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joe Sick Posted April 13, 2005 Share Posted April 13, 2005 Bringing up Jeb and the Schiavo affair is quite relevant to Newt. He told his first wife he wanted a divorce after she was diagnosed with breast cancer. He told his second wife he wanted a divorce on Mother's Day, after he found out she had MS. If Michael Sciavo is a dirtball, this guy is twice as bad. I would love to see the Dems run Eliot Spitzer against this guy. This guys is above reproach and seems like a real reformer. I think he is one candidate who could clean up government waste and fraud. Newt has no chance to win the nomination. I would love to see Newt run as an independent, though! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MaddogCT Posted April 13, 2005 Share Posted April 13, 2005 Originally posted by portisizzle The beauty of the Clinton legacy is that they both will be forever attached to Monica Lewinsky. That, my friend, puts a smile on my face. See my teeth?? BTW, both Newt and Clinton have a personal reputation that resonates in their political life. Try to tell me I am wrong. Heck, Bill and Hillary wrote a book about their personal and professional lives. Nice try. And Newt for having sex on his office desk with someone other than his wife and then going out in public shaking his finger, telling us about Family Values. The man is a fraud and a liar. :logo: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
luckydevil Posted April 13, 2005 Share Posted April 13, 2005 I would love to see the Dems run Eliot Spitzer against this guy. This guys is above reproach and seems like a real reformer. I think he is one candidate who could clean up government waste and fraud. Bullsh*t The man is a power drunk ahole. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jenmdixon Posted April 13, 2005 Share Posted April 13, 2005 Originally posted by Bufford Jen, here are some other pics for backups in your sig. Thank you, Bufford. You rock. I'll add 'em to the rotation and credit ya Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joe Sick Posted April 13, 2005 Share Posted April 13, 2005 Originally posted by luckydevil Bullsh*t The man is a power drunk ahole. Maybe so, but he gets results! He's done more to clean up Wall St. than this president has. Maybe 2012, after he runs NYC for a term. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joe Sick Posted April 13, 2005 Share Posted April 13, 2005 Oh, yeah. If anyone wants to see Newt Gingrich speak, he will be at the Silverton Hotel in Las Vegas on the 14th of April. Make sure you go on the right night. Twisted Sister plays the week before him and Steppenwolf plays that auditorium the week after... http://www.silvertoncasino.com/events/content/F76D72D0-EF60-A70A-0576D7430C005896/04/14/2005 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JimboDaMan Posted April 14, 2005 Share Posted April 14, 2005 Originally posted by lckelsey4 I'd be surprised if more than fifteen percent of this country would even remember who he was until the media reminded them. I'd be surprised if fifteen percent of the people who voted for kerry could even remember his name. I'd be surprised if 15% of the population would vote for Newt for President. First, he's a has-been. His time has come and gone. Tough to run as the party of fresh new ideas with a retread at the helm. Second, his legacy is too polarizing to run for President. Ronald Reagan could overcome an extremist reputation and win folks over with his engaging personality. Newt would be able to do that how? Finally, Newt has way way too much baggage to ever get outof the gate. I'd be surprised if 15% of the population would vote for Newt for dogcatcher. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
@DCGoldPants Posted April 22, 2005 Share Posted April 22, 2005 open mouth, insert foot http://www.cbc.ca/storyview/MSN/world/national/2005/04/21/gingrich-mckenna050421.html Newt Gingrich sorry for comments about CanadaLast Updated Thu, 21 Apr 2005 11:28:44 EDT CBC News WASHINGTON - Outspoken American conservative Newt Gingrich has apologized for saying this week that some of the Sept. 11 hijackers entered the United States from Canada. Gingrich, a former Republican speaker in the U.S. House of Representatives, retracted the comments on Wednesday after Canadian Ambassador Frank McKenna sent him a letter. "Please accept my apology to the Canadian people for perpetuating the error; one I am sure that has been very painful to them," said Gingrich in a reply to McKenna. He told the ambassador he "deeply regrets" what has become a "widespread inaccuracy." Speaking Tuesday on the Fox News political show Hannity & Colmes, Gingrich said: "Far more of the 9/11 terrorists came across from Canada than from Mexico." None of the 19 hijackers entered the U.S. from either Canada or Mexico, information confirmed by former U.S. attorney general John Ashcroft and the 9/11 Commission investigating the attacks, wrote McKenna in his letter to Gingrich. The comments "perpetuate an urban legend that can take on a life of its own, especially when repeated by people whose opinions are deeply respected in the United States," he wrote. "Canadians and Americans are great friends. And great friends can tell it like it is," he said. "In the interest of that friendship and to set the record straight, I ask that you retract your statement." If we're going to blame a "country", why not the country where most of the hijackers came from? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.