It's pretty simple. Republicans will not beat Obama unless they can attract the independent crowd. And Gingrich will alienate that crowd.
Come on, he is lacking in ethics, is a womanizer and a lobbyist for Freddie/Fannie (the two entities that have cost the taxpayer $141 BILLION so far). He represents the worst that Washington represents.
Come on, are you guys really this gullible? Ignore one's track record and listen to the lies they are currently telling you? Are you really that naive?
If you nominate someone like Gingrich, you will just be handing Obama four more years.
Posted by Independent, a resident of the Another Pleasanton neighborhood neighborhood, on Dec 7, 2011 at 7:24 pm
Romney, given his successful track record, was the only one interesting to me. But it looks like he is too moderate for the far right.
It is amazing to see the Republicans shoot themselves in the foot like this. They are going to help Obama make history once again. No incumbent with the economy and poll numbers like Obama has been re-elected. It looks like that streak is going to be broken.
Posted by Arroyo, a resident of the Another Pleasanton neighborhood neighborhood, on Dec 8, 2011 at 7:25 am
I don't think Newt is a picture of virtue, nor did I like what he did when he previously held office. However, even with his warts, I would take him in a heartbeat over this inept group currently in charge of the executive branch.
A great many voters who helped elect Mr. Obama have no intention of voting for him again, regardless of who the Republicans nominate for their candidate.
Posted by Real Republican, a resident of the Another Pleasanton neighborhood neighborhood, on Dec 8, 2011 at 12:28 pm
Christie and Sununu each officially 'endorsed' Romney several months ago....but, few political hosts or pundits bothered to 'mention' very often, if at all. The extremists on either side
neglect to feed anthing positive on Romney. The far right want an extremist and the left want Obama. So, not all positive news on Romney makes it to the public...no headlines ! ! We need to ask hosts why haven't people known that Christie endorsed Romney months ago....I saw Romney and CHRISTIE LIVE on C-SPAN and never heard it again on cable networks. I do believe the left hosts (several have been fired for being 'hard' on Obama) don't want to chance Romney being Obama's opponent. And, on the right, we know the religous bigots will continue to be religious bigots... they only 'say' they want to beat Obama...but not really. Just two weeks ago they had CAIN as their # 1..Gingrich will never survive campaigning until NOV. 2012. Who's taking bets on implosion or explosion?
The right supposedly was begging Christie to be the leader...and he said ' go with Romney', they should follow his endorsement.
Posted by Jubel, a resident of the California Reflections neighborhood, on Dec 8, 2011 at 12:38 pm
Christie is polling lower in his home state than is Obama at the national level. Why should anyone take seriously any endorsement coming from the obese blowhard from NJ?
Romney would be no less of a disaster than any of the other Republican candidates. One of his first moves in office, he says, will be a 10-20% reduction of all fed employees. Effects on the economy? He doesn't care because he's worth over 200 million from all the cannibalizing of companies that he engaged in while in the private sector. He wants the banks to dump all foreclosed homes on the market at one time. Effects upon home values? He doesn't care because he has 7-8 houses himself and has no need to sell them.
It isn't just that the Republicans are clowns, all of them. It's the policies they are promoting. Those policies are all aimed to benefit the rich, and the rest of us are expected to survive as best we can, under a freeway overpass if need be. BTW, if Gingrich gets in, he promises to install Bolton as Sec of STate. So doing will mean nuclear war in less than a year. Obama, with all his warts, is our only reasonable hope in 2012.
There is a role for government, but our current form is becoming a larger detriment to a properly functioning economy. We need a President who understands this from experience. I don't think community organizer experience cuts it.
Posted by Real Republican, a resident of the Another Pleasanton neighborhood neighborhood, on Dec 8, 2011 at 3:14 pm
Jubel, like most Dems, are heavy on 'spins' about Romney...terrified that he might be the nonimee to stand toe to toe with Obama. At least Newt is good for something, he's confused the Obama team, and they have to plan and fight against both Mitt and Newt..
To 'What I don't understand' and why "they" are "allowing" Trump to moderate his dabate. First, there is no 'they'. THE party is not involved in the debates. CNN wanted to have one, group X wants to have one, NBC has one, and then 'The Donald', the only one with a bigger ego than Newt, decided he wants to be 'Kingmaker', and I have no doubt there was a "$$$ deal" for Newt, hidden of course. Most debates are moderated by 'reporters'. Trumps show is an insult to our governmental 'process'. Nice if there could be 'guidelines' for 'standards' for our electoral process...but I guess it's wide open. With both Newt and Trump it will be pure theatre. I'm glad Romney, Paul, and Huntsman, declined to be players in his show.
Posted by Gordy, a resident of the Canyon Meadows neighborhood, on Dec 8, 2011 at 4:30 pm
Won't get fooled again? That can only mean that you were a fool then and remain a fool now. Obama has done nothing he didn't promise to do during his campaign.
My brother once ran a business, too. He ran a summertime lemonade stand and did so, in contrast to Romney, without cutting large numbers of his workforce. If you think running a govt is like running a business, then you don't know much about either govts or businesses. But that's no surprise, as you've already told us what a fool you are.
Posted by Independent, a resident of the Another Pleasanton neighborhood neighborhood, on Dec 8, 2011 at 5:02 pm
Can't you find it in yourself to rise above all this juvenille name calling?
All stakeholders involved are much better off with a business that is a going concern that unfortunately had to shed some employees. Contrast this with a company that holds onto too many employees and slowly goes out of business or gets a bailout (e.g. GM). Yes it is unfortunate for the employees that get laid off but this is what creates the vibrancy of our economy. If the overall economy is healthy, those laid off employees will find other jobs.
This idea that government shouldn't be held to the same standard of business is BS. Just think about it for a moment. The more efficient we are with infrustructure investments, the better off everyone is (except for maybe those union controlled operations that like to overcharge).
If a government is able to continue to siphon off wealth and deploy it in unproductive ways, there are fewer resources for the economy overall to create wealth for all. This in turn creates a very stagnant economy and society like Greece and similar unfortunately to current path for the US.
Most people with business experience recognize that Obama is completely out of his depth with regard to the economy and business overall. I want someone in office who has a proven track record of creating value not destroying it.
Posted by Gordy, a resident of the Canyon Meadows neighborhood, on Dec 8, 2011 at 7:47 pm
One doesn't have to be juvenile to recognize foolishness, for even a child is capable of seeing it when it is flaunted the way you flaunt it. Govts aren't about 'creating value', chump. They are, among many things, about deploying tax money in order to respond to public need. Govt and business work on entirely different logics. 6th grade civics will tell you as much. No wonder why you can't figure out why you voted for Obama first time round and why you're now peddling Romney schlock as alternative. Go read a book!
Posted by Independent, a resident of the Another Pleasanton neighborhood neighborhood, on Dec 9, 2011 at 7:12 am
"Govts aren't about 'creating value', chump. They are, among many things, about deploying tax money in order to respond to public need."
What is responding to public need? The creation of value.
If productivity-enhancing bridge is needed and one could get an equally high quality bridge for half the cost, which bridge is better for society? The lower cost bridge. Because then the money saved could be used for other public needs.
It's pretty self evident (at least for those who know how to create value) that a more efficient government is better. It seems a bit silly to even be debating this with you.
Posted by Gordy, a resident of the Canyon Meadows neighborhood, on Dec 9, 2011 at 3:35 pm
Well, Chump, govt isn't about building bridges -- in fact, you might make note of the fact that govt ordinarily contracts out to companies that they commission to build the bridge.
You might also figure out a way of measuring the 'creation of value' of the Supreme Court, or Dept. of Justice, or the Office of the Presidency. (Don't return to these posts until you've figured this one out. See ya in 2054.)
Fact is, Chump, govts don't do what private businesses do. They have distinct ends and means of attaining those ends; their reasons for existence are founded on quite different principles. You might, for example, begin by comparing a company CEO with our nation's President. The company CEO doesn't have to negotiate and compromise with reps from another political party; a company CEO doesn't have to enforce the laws legislated by Congress as a branch of govt independent of the Executive branch.
Companies can decide to target select consumer audiences (and the rest be damned); govts must act on behalf of all. But these are only a few of the significant differences between govt and private business that one learns about in 5th grade civics. It's difficult to even begin to provide reasons to someone whose education consists of nothing more than having read a wikipedia account of Ayn Rand.
But please continue to demonstrate your total ignorance about matters political. You don't seem to know who to vote for or why. Your clown-like view of the world seems to be a cartoon version of what right-wing ideologues held near and dear leading up to the great crash and depression of the 1930s. Knock yourself out. The majority of Californians seem to have figured this one out. Why can't you? ... On second thought, forget that I asked.
Posted by Independent, a resident of the Another Pleasanton neighborhood neighborhood, on Dec 9, 2011 at 5:08 pm
And California is such a strong example of effective government and a vibrant economy ... LOL
I agree with you on the point that not all government function's value can be quantified. Clearly there is a role for government to create an effective framework for people to live their lives and better themselves.
However, which situation is better - a government that costs 40% of GDP to perform these functions or one that costs 20% of GDP? Unless you are big on transferring wealth, most would say the later. In fact, history suggests the same. Put USSR/Cuba/Venezuela at one end spectrum and countries like Chile/New Zealand/etc. at the other end.
Net, a more efficient government ultimately benefits everyone. So again, why shouldn't government be held to the same standard by which we live our lives and expect our businesses/counter-parties/etc. to perform?
Posted by Maria, a resident of the Another Pleasanton neighborhood neighborhood, on Dec 12, 2011 at 10:20 am
This entire batch of current politicians disappoints me, Republicans and Democrats alike. They're all a bunch of pussies and panderers. In this digital age, it's VERY easy to look up a politician's voting history, so when they flip-flop, it's immediately evident. I'm not happy with Obama but the alternatives aren't any better...
Posted by Jubel, a resident of the California Reflections neighborhood, on Dec 12, 2011 at 8:30 pm
"What are the Republicans thinking?"
Are you joking? Republicans don't think. They strategize in order to maximize their wealth and power. The act of thinking, in contrast, involves critical self reflection in an effort to become a better person. Republicans don't care about personhood. It's all about the money, baby!!! Gingrich, Romney, Bachmann, Palin? Who cares? Anyone knows no genuinely self-respecting, thinking person would seek to lead the sick, hate crowds who refer to themselves as Republicans. Screw gays! Screw blacks! Screw immigrants! Screw nonchristians! Screw impoverished kids! Screw the unemployed! Screw single mothers! Screw young women who seek an abortion! Just keep your fingers off tax breaks for the wealthy.
Posted by Real Republican, a resident of the Another Pleasanton neighborhood neighborhood, on Dec 12, 2011 at 10:57 pm
Jubel, surely you don't want us to hold you responsible for all the Dem crazies, starting with the leftist anarchists, and extremists on everything under the sun. I'm cutting you slack, considering all your misinformation and hatred. Of course your hatred may come from the misinformation, likely due to kook groups who have filled you with lies.
I proudly tell you I'm a real Republican, which many you mention are not. I want what is best for a republican victory...many of the kooks you mention do not have that as a goal. I am ashameed of many narrow-minded single issue zealots, but I am NOT responsible for them. I know I am a real Republican. I KNOW it is NOT about me or demands from any individuals....I have my doubts about the motives and non-politicdal goals of others and spin-off groups. Don't lump all 'individuals' together, it's just that candidates pretty much fall into two groups, one called Repub, another Dem. There are no perfect candidates, nominees, OR SPOUSES !! Most folks are happily married to 90 percenters, if they are lucky...there are no 100 percenters. For me victory matters. Some would rather fall on their swords than anything less than 100%, which they will never find.
Republican voters now heavily favor Newt Gingrich over Mitt Romney as the party's nominee, according to a new Wall Street Journal/NBC News survey, but the poll also found deep unease with Mr. Gingrich among independents and swing voters who normally decide presidential elections.