The essence of Newt

[santahog]

Okay FQ.. Lets try it your way for a minute..
Let's say that calling Doud's article doggerel, (of little literary value) is the same as an ad hominim, (ie. character assasination) attack on you. You walked down range and stuck up a target. If you don't like that somebody put a round through it, you shouldnt have stuck it up there. Cry... If it hurts, quit doing it.. You can't cry just because you don't like the answer.. If you are, in fact, Maureen Doud, posting as FQ13, why the big secret? The first ammendment says nothing about a prohibition on opposing views.
Let's try this a different way now.. You seem to hold forth that this blurb in the NYT is the definition of Newt Gingrich. Okay.. How bout this.. Which post in this thread, excluding yours or mine gets to be in Brittanica under your name? Oh, and you don't get to pick which one. That honor goes to a political/philosophical opponent.
I get the idea that you come down on the left side of the aisle because of a cursory glance at your posts in the last few weeks. Your squeal at being challanged tells me that my observations have some basis.
You can't call for compromise the way the political left in this country defines it, (Do what I want and you can followin my shadow) and expect to be taken as a rational advocate for some mythical, moderate position. The article I posted in response to Doggerel Dowd only exists in public discourse because nobody is buying what she's peddling anymore. Those who accept it already have a yard full of the stuff. She's playing to an audience. We all know that..
If Washington showed up on the debate stage, would Maureen Dowd support him, not knowing who he was ? Or would she react with more contempt than she did Gingrich?
Find truth where ever you can, but make sure what you know is so before you go shouting it on the mountain.. That Dowd piece is a string of ad-hominim half truths, which is a whole lot of nothing worth knowing.. By the way, when did you stop beating your wife, hmmm?
Call me Joe..

[fightingquaker13]

Ok joe.......
Umm, I never said I stopped beating my wife, she just annoys me.   As to the rest, again, you may think I am a jerk. That's fine, you will be in good company. The same can be said for Dowd (who I am not endorsing for office, I just thought she wrote a good column). But here is the crux of the matter. You have not, nor has anyone else, refuted a single point. People slam" me. They slam Dowd. They slam the Times. They say "The Dems did it too", they say I'm whining. But does anyone refute the charges.........crickets. "Ladies and Gentlemen of the jury you hear what? Oh, nothing but insults? Its because they have nothing to say".
Am I making my point? Because seriously, I'm not the enemy here. I will be voting NO and HELL NO, in 2012 unless Santorum or Bachman get the nod. I'm just making the point that if Newt irritates someone who WANTS to vote against BO, how is this going to play with the great unwashed and undecided who might be inclined to vote for him unless we can convince them other wise? You better have a better selling point than "The other guy sucks" because speaking as someone who does this for a living? That almost never wins an election.
FQ13

[Herknav]

Am I the only one who finds it humerous that you guys are now on page four arguing over something that wasn't even Dowd's original thought?  It came from a commenter.   

[fightingquaker13]

Am I the only one who finds it humerous that you guys are now on page four arguing over something that wasn't even Dowd's original thought?  It came from a commenter.  

Herk, we have made it  to 5 pages in a debate over what the topic was. Frankly, I just think the point is simply this. We need to be about what we are for, not we are against, or we will get our asses handed to us. And yes, if I had thought to sum it up that neatly earlier we could have saved some bandwidth, but sometimes it takes a guy like you to make us summarise Doh!.
FQ13

[Pathfinder]

I too will vote for Newt, but I am less than confident he will win. And again guys, re-read your posts. Please, seriously, no BS re-read them. You are attacking the bearer of bad news. When did conservative political debate (big or little C) come from the Carville/Rove playbook of smearing the other guy? Why are you after me or Dowd for saying things you don't want to hear? Not one of you has refuted anything. There is not one post that has said "No, she's wrong, Newt didn't do that"! the best you've come up with is TW saying, "They did it too, and did it worse". That's the equivalent of Clinton pointing the finger at W. and saying "He inhaled, I never did"!

OK, sometimes it takes a while for things to get through to you, FQ, so I will keep this simple. Just like mauler quoting Infowars, or Tom mentioning the Weekly World News as a source, there are just some things you cannot ever trust. For all it may have ever been at one point in the long distant past, the NYT has become a highly unreliable source. They are well renowned to be far left in their presentation of the news. For example, my ex-SIL, a card-carrying liberal Jew, was shocked - shocked I tell you - to discover that their coverage of the Israelis was biased - a little tidbit I had seen for over 10 years at that point.

So when you quote the NYT, a number of us, knowing how questionable they are, kinda roll our eyes and try to hit other sources to see what the real story is.

But then you compound the issue by quoting a twit like Dowd who has been firmly planted well inside the far left's arse for years. And you wonder why we don't read her? As I said in my first post, think Broken Clock if she seems to be onto something. And verify the heck out of what she says.

Lastly, FQ, and this is heartfelt, I do not consider you to be a jerk. Not even close. I see you as a secular Saul, who has yet to make his journey to Damascus. I also see in you a lot of who I once was a long time ago before the scales fell from my eyes.

Lastly, as for Newt, he will sell Americans out just like most of the candidates will. It is inevitable at this point. So point at his feet of clay all you want, some of us know they're there and their just part of what's expected from .gov these days.

BTW - anyone notice the correct usage of they're, there, and their in the last paragraph? I hope so! 

[Sponsor]

[tombogan03884]

Herk, we have made it  to 5 pages in a debate over what the topic was. Frankly, I just think the point is simply this. We need to be about what we are for, not we are against, or we will get our asses handed to us. And yes, if I had thought to sum it up that neatly earlier we could have saved some bandwidth, but sometimes it takes a guy like you to make us summarise Doh!.
FQ13

He is not exaggerating about that, If I could remember the title I would link to the thread.

[santahog]

FQ..
It drives me nuts to be accused of attacking you personally when I haven't done that.. It's leftist, adolescent logic, designed to be offended. That's why I asked you that silly old saw.. If I call an article by Dowd Bullshit, it does not mean that I'm saying that pot heads are picking psilocybin mushrooms out of your hair. Your holding up the article up as a serious consideration for conservatives to take note of does make me question your judgement. As for doing whatever you do for a living, (and I'm very curious to find out more about that, btw. You have my attention.) the biggest idiots in political discourse are Political Consultants. Begala and Beckel are two prime examples of that. Your debate tactics are those of the political left. You can call that an insult if you want. I'd be pretty annoyed if I was told that about myself. It's what I'm seeing in your posts. I say this as a simple observation, not a personal attack. If that doesn't make you question why I say so, maybe you're a product of the school of though of the political left that so readily employs such tactics. Wanna hear a name of a double minded political commentator? Ann Coulter.. She touts the 2A as as big a deal as any of us here and holds forth Governor Christie of NEW JERSEY and Mitt Romney of MASSACHUSETTS... as her two top picks for President!!!!! That makes her a party establishment type, a sell out or a moron. You can make the case about Newt being among the worst "viable" candidates we could run against Obama but you don't have to make it to me. I already know.. I trust Newt with 2A, Healthcare and privacy about as much as I do Mitthew... That said, I've been actively advocating for Newt for about 5 years now.. One more reason I could only cast a vote for McCain was Palin.. One thing I didn't see in your article was "Gingrich-Feingold" or "Gingrich-Kennedy". The difference between Mitt and Newt, for me, is that I can't vote for Mitt anymore than you can vote for Bachmann. I'll sit that one out, thank you very much.
I have all confidence that you are not "all wrong", because you're here.. I'm guessing you're a "Militant Moderate". It will take me several months to be comfortable that I have some real sense of who you are. You do seem to be an enigma of sorts, unless, as it's been suggested, that you just like throwing shit in the fan to watch how people react to it.. But if you can't tell the difference between a vigorous political discourse and a personal attack, you either haven't been doing this long enough, or you've been doing it too long.. I don't have a good enough sense of you yet to think you're a jerk. I do think, based on the relatively conservative company that you keep here, that you don't spend nearly enough time, or don't have the ability to look at yourself in a third person context. If a blanket dismissal of Maureen Dowd is an ad hominim attack on you personally, you probably don't have the ability to change your own mind, (and having it changed for you is a painful endeavour) let alone have an objective debate over a legitimate difference of opinion with someone who considers themself an intellectual equal.

This seems like a waste of time. I get saying something something 4000 times and not having the patience to explain positions to someone who is just tuning in. My dueling has been done on another forum for over 4 years now. I joined this forum about the same time I joined that one. The other one has a more user-friendly format and it was a newer group with a focus on learning CC from folks who want to help, with that as a primary focus. It blew up over fee structure and now I'm trying to come in here and take part with a group of intellegent observers. I addressed you on this thread because the presence of Dowd doesn't make sense to me as a serious consideration.. If you'll allow, I'll learn how to approach you, (if possible) and pull out what I'm looking to get from you here...
As for being a jerk.. I are one.. I can point you to several Democrats who will be happy to take an oath to that effect.. Many of which I'm related to by blood or marriage..
Pleased to meet ya..
Joe

[Timothy]

Santahog,

FQ, our resident faux libertarian, is a Political Science professor with a lot of letters after his name from a very prestigious university who's tuition was paid for, in part, by the US Taxpayer!

Correct me if I'm wrong FQ...

BTW Joe, nice to have you here.  Keep up the fight!

[fightingquaker13]

Joe
First, welcome aboard and please don't leave on my account. Nothing I wrote was meant as a personal insult to you. I rarely make those and if I do insult you, believe me you'll know it.

Second I wasn't whining about "poor me I've been insulted". I've been insulted by experts and it really doesn't bother me. Just ask Tom.

Third, I was way off my game in this thread. I kept trying to make a point and just couldn't find the words to do it succinctly so I kept floundering around with lengthy posts trying to find the right words (a very bad thing in my line of work, particularly since I want to be Peggy Noonan when I grow up ). The point was simply that we (we defined as those want change and hope to get it in 2012) need to be about what we are for rather than what we are against. Blasting our critics won't win an election. Telling people why our guy is the best thing since sliced bread will.
Now that said, there was the 1991 Louisiana Governors race between David Duke and indicted felon Evin Edwards where Edwards own people put out a bumper sticker that read "Vote for the crook, it's that important". I really fear that it might come to that this year.

Anywho, my politics don't fit neatly into a box and like you I have little love for either party. I look forward to debating you. Just don't take what I say personally and I promise to do the same. its all in good fun and the hope is that we might learn something from each other. I know that I have from being here.

FQ13

PS As to my job I am a currently underemployed political scientist who  works doing legal research. I also have moonlighted as a political consultant (and yes I have worked for candidates of the D, R and L persuasion, and no, none of them ever gave me a "tingle up my leg" ).

[tombogan03884]

Joe, bear in mind some things,
1- People who learned their "politics" and "history" in college don't know squat about those subjects.
    They know what the leftist teacher wants them to write down at test time.
2- A "political consultant" is some one who needs to know squat about politics, history, or current events,
   They need to know how to get votes.

FQ, have any of the candidates gotten elected ?

Joe
First, welcome aboard and please don't leave on my account. Nothing I wrote was meant as a personal insult to you. I rarely make those and if I do insult you, believe me you'll know it.

Second I wasn't whining about "poor me I've been insulted". I've been insulted by experts and it really doesn't bother me. Just ask Tom.

Third, I was way off my game in this thread. I kept trying to make a point and just couldn't find the words to do it succinctly so I kept floundering around with lengthy posts trying to find the right words (a very bad thing in my line of work, particularly since I want to be Peggy Noonan when I grow up ). The point was simply that we (we defined as those want change and hope to get it in 2012) need to be about what we are for rather than what we are against. Blasting our critics won't win an election. Telling people why our guy is the best thing since sliced bread will.
Now that said, there was the 1991 Louisiana Governors race between David Duke and indicted felon Evin Edwards where Edwards own people put out a bumper sticker that read "Vote for the crook, it's that important". I really fear that it might come to that this year.

Anywho, my politics don't fit neatly into a box and like you I have little love for either party. I look forward to debating you. Just don't take what I say personally and I promise to do the same. its all in good fun and the hope is that we might learn something from other. I know that I have from being here.

FQ13

PS As to my job I am a currently underemployed political scientist who  works doing legal research. I also moonlight as a political consultant (and yes I have worked for candidates of the D, R and L persuasion).

He could be a politician him self, the only way I've managed to get a rise from him was to spell his name wrong.