Quit Mitt, or no Newt is good Newt?

Yeah, yeah, still no blogging.  But one contributing factor just now occurred to me:  I really  don’t like Newt Gingrich.  Really.  Didn’t like him back then, don’t like him now.  He’s vastly smarter than most politicians…yet is still a hypocritical, self-worshipping moron.  Half his ideas are “government knows best” idiocies.  And his massive mistakes and moral morasses haven’t tempered the finger-wagging and sanctimony one iota.      

Sure, I’ll vote for him if I have to.  Same as Romney.  Either of them might be patriot enough to try curbing government spending.  We don’t know what their Presidencies would be like, but we know Obama’s.  So better these devils we don’t know than the one we already do.

But Newt/Mitt blogging would mean lots of teeth-gnashing on my part.  Don’t really feel like doing that.

About wormme

I've accepted that all of you are socially superior to me. But no pretending that any of you are rational.
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

27 Responses to Quit Mitt, or no Newt is good Newt?

  1. Sue says:

    I don’t “like” the candidates, but I will tolerate the “Not-Obama” we get, simply because it is better than what we have now. That being said, I am not as concerned with which candidate takes the White House, since the important races are now in Congress. If there are Republicans in the majority in both Houses, then the President will be a bit more “solid” than might be otherwise. If the Congress is majority Republican, then even Obama would have some limitations on how much damage he can continue to do.

    • Sue says:

      Worst case scenario, in my opinion, is Obama squeaks by and we continue to have split control in Congress. So four more years of gridlock. Justice Scalia recently said, “Learn to love the gridlock.” It’s good advice in these “perilous” times…

  2. midwest bill says:

    Newt can say a lot of good things, and seems able to make his case clearly. Not sure I trust him since he has held so many positions and has nefarious alliances in his past.

    I’m dismayed that we can’t get a well spoken conservative candidate that doesn’t have a lot of slime all over him. But mad dog Newt might be the best chance. He seems agile enough to take on the biased media on the fly, without repeating tired talking points.

    • Sue says:

      “A well spoken conservative candidate that doesn’t have a lot of slime all over him” knows the secret of politics – you will be slimed, falsely and often, not matter what, because that’s how some people have always won over people like you.

      Most conservatives in their right minds have better things to do than politics…

  3. waytoomanydaves says:

    I would have to hold my nose while voting for Newt. But voting for Mitt would make me throw up.

  4. Edohiguma says:

    IMO, it won’t really matter. The MSM will chose the RINO you can use to vote against Obama. I’m not using “vote for” on purpose. Elections these days boil down to voting against something, and no longer for it, and not just in the US. And that’s pretty sad.

    The problem isn’t even Obama. The real problem are the people who voted for him in the first place (though, I’m still convinced most voted against the McCain-Palin ticket and against being called racist.)

    That said, what is now in the presedential race is not the Brady Bunch, but rather the Beltway Bunch. Over here we have a saying about crows and how they stick together. Literally translated it says that one crow doesn’t hack out the eye of another. Every single political aristocracy around the planet works like that. They all talk in front of the cameras, but I don’t even want to know what’s happening behind closed doors.

    • Sue says:

      I haven’t voted “for” in a long time, only “against”.
      I think you are right that people voted “against” being called racist, unfortunately. Obama is the “affirmative action” President, indeed.
      But really, we are only talking about a government composed largely of corrupt individuals, and that is something that can be changed, only it happens far too slowly for my taste sometimes.

      • Edohiguma says:

        Well, the French introduced a way of changing it quickly… Not necessarily more efficient, but it really depends on how you handle the aftermath.

        Heck, I’d rather have a figure like Napoleon as emperor than the load of retards in my parliament.

  5. Ed Hering says:

    If Mitt is on the ticket, I’m not voting for it. Period. I’m a life-long Republican but I am tired of voting for “Democrat Lite” just because that’s all the GOP nominated this time around.

    There is no effective difference between Barack Hussein and Mitt, except for the reflectivity of their skins.

    I’ll vote in the Congressional election and I’ll vote in the state and local ones, but not for President; I’ll leave that one blank.

    • Sue says:

      So you are de facto voting “for” Obama… 😦
      If people don’t vote “for” the ticket – in other words, make the necessary choice against the other guy, then they are enabling the incumbent and his fraud.
      Sucks, but that’s the way it is – once again…

      • Ed Hering says:

        My point is, I’d be voting for “Obama” either way–there’s no effective difference between Romney and Obama

        I’ve stopped holding out hope that the GOP is going to do anything right; I’ve been reduced to merely hoping that they’re smart enough to figure out that they lose elections when they put up “Democrat Lite” candidates.

        When the GOP won back control of the House of Representatives in the 2010 elections, I said that they had one more chance to keep my loyalty to the party, but I had to see them acting like they were interested in fixing the problems of the country, like out-of-control federal spending.

        Instead we got tap-dancing, smoke, and mirrors; the budget “fight” was a charade that didn’t cut so much as a single penny from the federal government, and in fact didn’t even reduce the rate of spending increases. The GOP has done nothing but maintain the status quo.

        So, yeah–if Romney gets the nod, I’m not voting for him; and if Obama wins election again maybe that’ll be enough of a wake-up call that the GOP will start listening to the rank-and-file again.

        But I doubt it.

  6. Rana says:

    When I voted for Obama almost 4 years ago I did it with gusto. When I vote for him next year I will do it with gusto. I find it a shame that those on the other side can’t even remotely like their candidates yet still vote for them. Pity really. Had I thought Obama was a douche when I voted for him I would have, well…not voted for him.

    Oh and Ed, using his middle name is trying to prove a point that isn’t. Playing on the scare tactics of the fringe psychopaths and it’s annoying. For example Ed, if your actual name was Ed Cooter Hering and I called you Ed Cooter all the time to point out your hill-billy heritage might it look like I was trying to prove something that might not be? Interesting indeed.

    P.S. OBAMA 2012!! Go O!!!

    • Sue says:

      If you wish, Rana, I will vote against him “with gusto” – in your honor. 🙂
      P.S. Some people know a douche when they see him, but other people don’t. That’s life.

    • MG says:

      Lol, His name is his name, everyone has them! Using a browbeating tactic against someone just saying his name, when text gives you no real information about any maliciousness that might or might not have been there is more a statement about you than him.

      As an aside, names are fascinating things, so full of meaning; the connection of ‘Cooter’ to ‘hillbilly’ is a bit of a modern thing lacking depth of education and thought.

      From one source:
      Cooter: From Sussex England, no meaning listed. Also found in Scotland. A list of origins to the USA, for a small number, shows England, Great Britain (someone needs to check their Geography for redundancy!), Spain, Luxembourg, Germany and Canada.
      Ergo, it’s an imported European name, like most; hillbillies are notably after that. (Also, fascinatingly, according to the small number of what I’m looking at, more served in the Union than the Confederacy.)

      Following my own experience I assumed it was a corrupted variant, which leads to things like:
      Cootes Surname Origin: genitive, or plural, of Coot/Coote.
      Coot Surname Origin: (Origin English) 1. a nickname from the waterfowl so called [Middle English cote, coot/coote: Dutch koet, a coot] 2. variant of Coate.
      Coote Surname Origin: Local Welsh ,Coed, a wood; Cornish British, Coit and Cut. Coot-hill or Coit-hayle, the wood on the river. On this vein another source notes: English: from Middle English co(o)te ‘coot’, applied as a nickname for a bald or stupid man. The bird was regarded as bald because of the large white patch, an extension of the bill, on its head. It is less easy to say how it acquired the reputation for stupidity.

      Wandering further into things listed as potential sound similarities:
      French has Couture, listed as a surname: Means “tailor”.
      Hungarian has Kádár: Means “cooper”.
      Czech has Kader: Which apparently, ultimately, turns into: Means “curl” in Czech; a nickname for a person with curly locks of hair.
      Skipping the Indian variants, there’s an interesting one:
      Arabic has Kader: which ultimately turns into: “capable, powerful” in Arabic.


      Language is a giddy thing.

      • Rana says:

        Wow I knew this would get a few panties all in a ruffle, but this is good stuff MG. Nothing like deflection when that’s all one has got. Interesting indeed.

        • MG says:

          My dear, there was nothing to deflect in your post. It simply wasn’t that deep.

          You had an opinion.

          Then a blanket declaration.

          Then an ad-hominem attack based on a fallacy (the fallacy is bi-directional with some people); using a bad comparative.

          An attentive reader would have noted that I left your entire first paragraph alone (because it was simply an opinion coupled with a blanket declaration). You jumped to another assumption.

          The response was an attempt to elucidate the irrelevancy of a name and the issue with your attack on the other poster.
          The wise question in response to my post would be to ask what the meaning of Hussein was, and point out how many people share names, and the often interlinked nature of names. Obviously that didn’t happen.

          • Rana says:

            Pot? Meet Kettle.

          • MG says:


            Not much of a troll are you.

          • Rana says:

            Not a troll at all MG, just passionate. I’ve been here since back when Fukushima blew. I post when I feel the need and read the rest.

          • MG says:

            Then you should watch the injection of combativeness.

            When I voted for Obama almost 4 years ago I did it with gusto. When I vote for him next year I will do it with gusto.

            Is ‘passionate’ opinion. People may, and likely will disagree, and expound that they do, but there’s nothing wrong with this.

            I find it a shame that those on the other side can’t even remotely like their candidates yet still vote for them. Pity really.

            This is assumption, with snark, which is going to be wrong more than right. It is the flip political side from your over-used ‘Foxified’.

            Had I thought Obama was a douche when I voted for him I would have, well…not voted for him.

            This is again opinion, there will be people who disagree; there’s nothing ‘wrong’ with their or your opinion.

            Oh and Ed, using his middle name is trying to prove a point that isn’t.

            It’s his name. It doesn’t matter, it’s not a secret attack. No credible person says Mohammed Ali’s name and wanders off into some kind of secret attack on him. To rephrase that to try and make it even more clear: Saying that using Obama’s middle name is an attack on him is as ludicrous as saying that anyone who talks about Mohammed Ali is insulting him.

            Playing on the scare tactics of the fringe psychopaths and it’s annoying.

            That’s a pretty direct personal attack.

            As for the attempted comparison: names are nothing, that was the point of the reply, Cooter, Hussein, whatever, they tell you little about the person.

            People will both agree and disagree with any politician, there will never be a time of 100% agreement on any issue. That so much energy has gone into the name ‘argument’ has been a disservice in the long run.

    • Ed Hering says:

      In what way is using a President’s full name anything like “scare tactics”?

      You must have some issues yourself with the man’s middle name if simple use of it offends you.

      If I were a hillbilly I’d be proud of it. Hillbillies have more sense than we give them credit for.

      I’d be interested to know what, exactly, about Obama’s administration you are so enthusiastic about.

      • Rana says:

        You didn’t use his full name, you only used his first two names. You must be Foxified Ed, but that’s ok I know when there’s a lost cause when I see him post. 😉

    • Edohiguma says:

      Sure, vote for 4 more years of copying failed EU ideas. What could possibly go wrong?

      Obama is a moron. His opponents are morons. The whole bloody political aristocracy needs to be purged.

      • Rana says:

        Yes, we wouldn’t want to travel back to the past decade and revisit how wonderful the Bush Era ended, right? Or hey I have an idea, let’s get on the way back train and take a gander at how amazing the last 25 years after the inception of Reaganomics has been? Let’s not pretend Obama reinvented the wheel here, sir. We MUST give “credit” where it is due.

        • Edohiguma says:

          Because it’s so wonderful now, right?

          Then let’s give Obama credit as well. The national debt is out of control, so is the federal spending. Obama wants more “green energy”, which is horribly inefficient. He went for supporting such companies and they start tanking, something that happened in the EU already. Did anyone learn from that? Of course not.

          Face it, you’re casting your lot with career politicians. People who only care about two things: power and money. Whether it’s Obama or Perry doesn’t matter. But I guess that is Wall Street’s fault and we must occupy it at once. Though, looking at the political systems anywhere in the civilized world… it’s the same everywhere. Even without Wall Street. Strange. The problem is career politicians. The very moment those appeared, the very moment we started to have this as a job, even with political dynasties (Japan’s ex-PM Hatoyama comes to mind), that moment the problems really started. Purge them all.

          Worst, however, is Obama’s approach to the pan-islamic terror sphere. Oh yeah, let’s appease them. Let’s appease fascists. That has worked so well in the past!

          Oh wait… it hasn’t. But hey, Obama calls himself an “avid student of history”… Of course he has no bloody idea about actual history. He’s a frigging lawyer! Lying is his profession. Same with the vast majority on the Hill. Left, Right, it doesn’t matter anymore. Purge them all.

          It’s kinda sad that so many people think their vote matters. Guess what. It doesn’t. You’re cattle for our so called leaders. Sheep that can be lied to and milked for tax money, while our rights are being diminished almost on a daily basis. This didn’t start with Obama. Obama’s just one of the many products of this nonsense.

          • Rana says:

            Wow that is a lot of words with a similar theme of nothingness and sounds a TON like Fox talking points.

            Which politicians, exactly, aren’t “career politicians?” If you sir are a true “student of history” it might behoove you to go take a walk down the Latin Countries memory lane and check to see what happened to each and every country that took away the middle class? It doesn’t lie in the fault of Obama, this train wreck we’re on is simply the problem of a dwindling middle class. I’ve seen it with my own eyes, but I know anecdotal evidence is no good here I get it. Hopefully in this country we can wake up and make change before a Revolution is eminent or we’ll be the next Nicaragua or Colombia.

            Go over to Greece and ask them (those who basically founded democracy) if they EVER in their wildest dreams thought they would be stripped of democracy and forced to be governed by an appointed banker? Ask them if they ever thought they were immune to such things. You think it won’t happen here? Keep letting Corporations be known as human beings, and let Republicans reinforce it and hide behind the guise of being good Christians.

            I have to say my friend, it REALLY matters if it’s “Obama or Perry” because the right shows us each and every day what they plan to install into our futures. The Republican controlled House just voted in a bill yesterday that gave them veto power over the White House and Executive rules. This is not checks and balance it’s over reaching greed. ARE YOU KIDDING ME??? Yes, keep being a proponent of the Right, keep lamb blasting Obama as the root of all evil. I guarantee you’ll be singing a new tune in a couple of years if in 2012 we ring in the New President and he’s from the GOP. Know how to lock-step?

            We saw what happened when Bush was in office, We saw what happened when Reagan was there and when Bush Sr. mouthed “read my lips.” We didn’t learn, we can only point fingers at what doesn’t make sense. It costs money to clean the mess that the septic tank makes when it over flows, lets not pretend Obama was the cause of the costs, rather the new tenant that had to do it.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s