Barack Obama

Ron Hart on SC Primary: No One, Especially the American People, Really Won.

|

In the Orange County Register, columnist Ron Hart takes the measure of the weekend's South Carolina GOP primary:

Newt getting newer and more blonde wives could be good for the economy. Any time a man marries his mistress it is a job creator, because then he will need to add a new mistress….

"Protecting" America, in these candidates' eyes, means – to our detriment – occupying and nation-building in countries that take our money and resent us. Ron Paul has it right. But that still gets you booed in South Carolina, a state that, since 1861, has had an affinity for starting wars that do not end well.

Much of what Newt boldly said resonates with many. He has gone from capturing some of the white vote to cutting into Mitt's lead among the really white vote. This could send Mitt Romney back to the Vineyard Vines catalog from which he sprang. Sadly, Newt's over-the-top comments made him the winner in South Carolina, much like voting for the WWF wrestler who spews the most bravado before a match. It has me thinking WTF?…

The Left has to be giddy with the bloody South Carolina GOP primary. It was like a bar fight in an old Western movie: the candidates kept pounding each other in the face and rolling out the door of the saloon, brawling all the way to the next venue, still a-fightin'. Everyone ended up beaten and dusty, and no one really won.

Whole bit here.

My how rapidly things are changing. The NY Daily News, which ran the image to the right back in 1995, was declaring on January 6 that the former Speaker's 2012 run was officially "doomed" after the New Hampshire ballots were cast and Gingrich threw a hissy fit over Der Mittel's negative yet truthful ads.

NEXT: A. Barton Hinkle on the Similarities Between Gun Rights and Abortion Rights

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. dyin aint much of a livin…boy

    1. …I had to come back.

      1. Bun only if the audience can cheer?

        1. No, no! The next line is, “I know.”

          Sheesh. It’s like you’ve never seen the movie or something.

          1. Apparently not – sorry, but I have no idea what you are talking about. No offense intended – I just don’t.

            1. I’m guessing it’s a Brokeback Mountain reference. Or something from a Star Trek movie.

                1. The cinematic illiteracy astounds.

                2. BakedPenguin gets the cee-gar.

        2. The audience at last night’s debate was made up of the candidates staff members and guests that they personally invited. The general public was relegated to a tent outside USF’s Marshall Center and could only watch it televised. The reasoning for not letting them cheer was clear cut since the candidate with the most guests and largest staff would get the loudest cheers and everyone else would just get booed.

          1. They know that the vast majority of people who would be attending a Republican primary debate on a college campus would be there to support Ron Paul, and they just can’t have the audience cheer wildly for Ron Paul while they boo everyone else. That would ruin their narrative that Ron Paul is an old kook who just can’t garner any support in the real world.

        1. for such a master debater, Newt fails to understand that there is no audience participation involved. The audiences job is to observe, not erupt in pre-planned applause designed to ensure the video replay of a particular debate segment.

  2. That clusterfuck last night bore no resemblance to a “debate.”

    And I really am sick of how much the MSM influences the public’s perception of the candidates and their validity as a candidate. Ron Paul was way off to the side and appeared on screen for maybe a total of 4 minutes.

    What a bunch of useless, pandering political fucking theater. We watched about 45 minutes and then turned it off in disgust.

    1. Alcatraz is much more entertaining.

      1. I like the Comic Book writer / historian. He seems to understand history much better than Newt.

        1. It’s Hurley!

          1. I never really got into Lost. Heard it was a good show, just never watched it myself.

            1. Here was my favorite excuse to watch it.

              http://www.imdb.com/name/nm1431940/

              1. That is a good reason – I can respect that.

              2. I miss you Kate.

              3. She’s pretty much the reason I put up with that inane show.

    2. What a bunch of useless, pandering political fucking theater

      Wait, are you referring to the debates or Reason’s live-blogging/chat room party?

  3. How many good ol’ boys are going to vote for a Yankee Mormon?
    I mean, really.

    1. If they weren’t all warmongers, maybe they would have voted for the Baptist.

      1. they hate the Mormon and think the Baptist is crazy. Mostly, though, they hate the Mormon; his ideas are irrelevant.

        1. So, explain their love for the Lutheran turned Baptist turned Catholic?

    2. I hope not many because i do not like YM but who knows, let`s wait and see the votes

  4. I think the MSM needs to re-define what debating really is.

  5. Everyone has feelings. We need to respect them.

  6. The thing that pisses me off most is that because I live in Indiana, my primary vote amounts to nothing. I have to sit by and watch a bunch of idiots in other states pick a candidate for me.

    They should just have a string of 5 debates, then one primary day where everyone votes, just so we can get it over with.

    1. The media would freak. The money they’re making on this primary is underwriting their entire news operations.

    2. I live in Maine. My vote means less than yours!

      1. Florida is a winner-take-all state. Think how Ron Paul’s supporters down here feel.

        1. I see a hell of a lot of Ron Paul signs hereabouts (central FL). More than any other candidate, by far.

      2. In the general election your individual vote means much more than that of a Californian.

        1. Not really. I can accurately gauge election results by taking the inverse of my ballot.

          1. What I mean though is that if you took the total number of electoral votes in California and divide it by the total population of adults you would have a lower number than if you took the total number of electoral votes in Maine and divide it by the total adult population of Maine. Your vote counts more where you are than it would if you moved to California.

            1. I know what you meant.

            2. The National Popular Vote bill would guarantee the Presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC).

              Every vote, everywhere, would be politically relevant and equal in presidential elections. No more distorting and divisive red and blue state maps. There would no longer be a handful of ‘battleground’ states where voters and policies are more important than those of the voters in more than 3/4ths of the states that now are just ‘spectators’ and ignored.

              When the bill is enacted by states possessing a majority of the electoral votes? enough electoral votes to elect a President (270 of 538), all the electoral votes from the enacting states would be awarded to the presidential candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states and DC.

              The bill uses the power given to each state by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution to change how they award their electoral votes for President. Historically, virtually all of the major changes in the method of electing the President, including ending the requirement that only men who owned substantial property could vote and 48 current state-by-state winner-take-all laws, have come about by state legislative action.

              In Gallup polls since 1944, only about 20% of the public has supported the current system of awarding all of a state’s electoral votes to the presidential candidate who receives the most votes in each separate state (with about 70% opposed and about 10% undecided). Support for a national popular vote is strong among Republicans, Democrats, and Independent voters, as well as every demographic group in virtually every state surveyed in recent polls in closely divided Battleground states: CO ? 68%, FL ? 78%, IA 75%, MI ? 73%, MO ? 70%, NH ? 69%, NV ? 72%, NM? 76%, NC ? 74%, OH ? 70%, PA ? 78%, VA ? 74%, and WI ? 71%; in Small states (3 to 5 electoral votes): AK ? 70%, DC ? 76%, DE ? 75%, ID ? 77%, ME ? 77%, MT ? 72%, NE 74%, NH ? 69%, NV ? 72%, NM ? 76%, OK ? 81%, RI ? 74%, SD ? 71%, UT ? 70%, VT ? 75%, WV ? 81%, and WY ? 69%; in Southern and Border states: AR ? 80%,, KY- 80%, MS ? 77%, MO ? 70%, NC ? 74%, OK ? 81%, SC ? 71%, TN ? 83%, VA ? 74%, and WV ? 81%; and in other states polled: CA ? 70%, CT ? 74%, MA ? 73%, MN ? 75%, NY ? 79%, OR ? 76%, and WA ? 77%. Americans believe that the candidate who receives the most votes should win.

              The bill has passed 31 state legislative chambers in 21 small, medium-small, medium, and large states. The bill has been enacted by 9 jurisdictions possessing 132 electoral votes – 49% of the 270 necessary to bring the law into effect.

              NationalPopularVote
              Follow National Popular Vote on Facebook via nationalpopularvoteinc

            3. Every vote would be equal with the National Popular Vote bill. It would guarantee the Presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC).

              Every vote, everywhere, would be politically relevant and equal in presidential elections. No more distorting and divisive red and blue state maps. There would no longer be a handful of ‘battleground’ states where voters and policies are more important than those of the voters in more than 3/4ths of the states that now are just ‘spectators’ and ignored.

              When the bill is enacted by states possessing a majority of the electoral votes? enough electoral votes to elect a President (270 of 538), all the electoral votes from the enacting states would be awarded to the presidential candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states and DC.

              The bill uses the power given to each state by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution to change how they award their electoral votes for President. Historically, virtually all of the major changes in the method of electing the President, including ending the requirement that only men who owned substantial property could vote and 48 current state-by-state winner-take-all laws, have come about by state legislative action.

              In Gallup polls since 1944, only about 20% of the public has supported the current system of awarding all of a state’s electoral votes to the presidential candidate who receives the most votes in each separate state (with about 70% opposed and about 10% undecided). Support for a national popular vote is strong among Republicans, Democrats, and Independent voters, as well as every demographic group in virtually every state surveyed in recent polls. Americans believe that the candidate who receives the most votes should win.

              The bill has passed 31 state legislative chambers in 21 small, medium-small, medium, and large states. The bill has been enacted by 9 jurisdictions possessing 132 electoral votes – 49% of the 270 necessary to bring the law into effect.

              NationalPopularVote
              Follow National Popular Vote on Facebook via nationalpopularvoteinc

    3. How about no primaries and just one convention?

      1. Willard Romney would like that because he would “know” he is the nominee of the War Party.

  7. Obama has already won re-election and the GOP is helping him do it. Newt Gingrich takes on John King and SC has a collective orgasm, as if a correspondent for CNN is what’s driving up the debt, expanding govt power, and drafting legislation. Just as liberalism can only survive if there is a massively uninformed population, Republicanism – not to be confused with conservatism – is usually the biggest obstacle to its own survival.

    All the hoopla about Romney’s tax returns. And? He’s wealthy. In other developments, the sun rose in the east today. But Fox hammered taxes as though it were a genuine issue; after all, he gave big money to the Mormon Church, you know, and the Catholic Channel can’t have that.

    If Newt it the nominee, the debates will be entertaining and Obama will win. The debates will require an open-air arena because no closed structure can contain two such massive egos.

    1. Obama isn’t going to win. Way too much baggage. Even a Gingrich nomination won’t overcome the damage reality has done to Obama’s fairy tale.

      1. ProL, you keep saying that and I want to believe you but the liberals I know are saying just the opposite. In 08 I had my doubts as to who would be worse, Obama or McCain. I was an idiot. Absolutely anything would be better than 2nd term Obama, so I hope to Zod you’re right.

        1. You know who else had hope?

          1. Princess Leia?

        2. The only thing worse than a 2nd Obama term would be a Newt term.

          1. I think they’d be equally horrible. The only upside to the Obama second term vs. the Newt first term would be Rand Paul getting a shot at running in 2016 instead of waiting until 2020.

            1. gotta agree the BHO is done. People will still have to go vote for BHO to win. They won’t. A good R candidate would landslide…any will win.

      2. pro,
        much as I want to believe you, he will. The Repub establishment is too timid to take the battle to this empty suit; it’s more worried about winning the Senate and controlling the money. The conservative establishment (this is the talk radio & Fox folk) hate the Mormon and the media, and want a fire-breather that will insult both.

        The MSM will cover Obama’s baggage with talking points like 3 million jobs created in his admin. I heard that one again this morning. Okay, please explain how unemployment has risen during his tenure yet jobs have been created at the same time, even though empirical evidence shows fewer people actually looking for work. Liberalism relies on a massively uninformed populace for survival; there is enough of that to re-elect the organizer in chief.

      3. You keep saying this, without seemingly taking into account the fact that TEAM BLUE schmucks will, at the end of the day, vote TEAM BLUE.

        I’m not saying Obama has it locked. I’m saying that anything can happen, and an Obama loss is far from sure.

        1. I’m confident that the economy will destroy him. In the voting booth, no one knows you voted racist (i.e., didn’t vote for Obama).

          1. given the economy, Obama should barely be on teh ballot. Yet, even the hypothetical head to heads show differences inside the margin of error. They should show gaps of ten points or more toward the Repub, particularly the one named Generic.

            1. The head to heads would be a lot more interesting if they were broken down state by state.

              1. ^^THIS^^

                National polls about presidential preference mean dick. But as long as the media can use them to write their narrative, they will, and dumb fuck Americans will fall in line because they somehow think it matters.

                1. In a direct cause and effect sense, national polls mean dick. As a shorthand for who will win the most electoral votes, it’s accurate 54/56 of the time.

          2. Partisans don’t vote rationally. Your presumption is that they will. The Carville “it’s the economy, stupid” stuff is, in my opinion, from a different era. The TEAM impulse has gotten stronger since then. Yes, the economy matters, but the partisan morons feel absolutely compelled to vote for their TEAM, and it’s not as if they think the other TEAM will be better on the economy, because, well…they don’t think at all.

            We’ll see.

            1. That will certainly boost him above the zero votes he should get, but the apathy about his performance coupled with the fact that everyone knows he’s got to go will end his Bizarro World presidency.

              1. You are WAY too overconfident.

                My supposition is that the only one who can force enough Team BLUE voters to stay home for a Republican win is Paul.

                Too many people (here at Reason) seem to believe that everyone thinks as they do (which is generally with some sense of rational thinking rather than Team thinking).

                With this pool of candidates, and the people who are voting, Obama is a virtual lock for re-election.

            2. Remember, Obama inherited this economy and he needs more time to work his economic magic, or something like that.

              Seriously, what problem hasn’t been solved by throwing truckloads of money at it?

          3. And yet Obama is winning in many polls against Gingrich (Romney and Paul are within the margins of error).

            1. Polls usually mean you responding to a question (which may be drafted to elicit a certain answer, of course) without total anonymity. Voting is different.

          4. I basically agree with Epi. Mathematically, this election will likely be about one thing: the ratio of rank partisan Rs to rank partisan Ds. The more ambivalent on the middle-to-D side of the spectrum, who were successfully mobilized by Obama’s empty rhetoric in ’08, will vote in far fewer numbers this time around. As for the other side, where McCain no doubt suffered to some degree the lack of support from the Paul contingent, this was long before Santelli’s “Tea Party” rant. Since then, the sentiment underpinning that movement has, I would argue, changed the situation fundamentally, such that the Rs now stand to lose a non-trivial level of support, given their current “electable” candidates.

            Neither in the case of the left, nor of the right, are these important factors yet being factored into the calculation. I don’t personally see it as a gimme, either way, though I do suggest that the Rs would make the correct political calculation by nominating Paul, counting on this being, essentially, an anti-Obama election.

        2. … TEAM BLUE schmucks will, at the end of the day, vote TEAM BLUE.

          Obama was able to mobilize alot of new voters last election. Good luck with that this cycle. My father-in-law voted for the first time in his life in 2008. I can pretty much guarantee he won’t go to the polls in 2012. I think many of Obama’s votes last time were cast to participate in an historic American event. He doesn’t get that luxury in 2012.

          1. Also, my wife and I voted for Fearless Leader last cycle. Definitely won’t vote that direction ever again.

            1. Ah, there is a glimmer of… something (not using the “H” word anymore, ok, Tim?). It would be nice to see turnout plummet so no one can crow about having “a mandate.” I fucking hate when they do that.

              1. They will always claim a mandate. A little less than 26% of the eligible voter population was enough to put Obama in office, and look what he was able to argue was a mandate. Consent of the governed, indeed.

                1. This. 50.1% of the people who bother to show voting against someone’s opponent = Mandate!

                  1. This. 50.1% of the people who bother to show voting against someone’s opponent = Mandate!

                    Yep.

                2. That reminds me of a friend I had in college. He used to say, “She looked at me; I think she likes me” about every girl he saw. And he was always wrong. Yet he kept saying and thinking it.

                  1. That reminds me of a friend I had in college. He used to say, “She looked at me; I think she likes me” about every girl he saw. And he was always wrong. Yet he kept saying and thinking it.

                    That’s actually a pretty normal and useful reaction if you’re incapable of reading women and finding out which ones actually do like you. If you’re wrong, no real harm — but if you’re right, you get laid.

                    1. It is pretty useful regardless. Who is to say even if you are good at reading women, you will always be right. Women are just a numbers game and there is no rhyme or reason to why they like some men but not others. It is like a slot machine. Keep pulling the handle and you will eventually get a winner.

                    2. The slot machine simile is probably better suited for a man (handle, etc.). Women would be more like a roulette wheel (drop a ball into it, see where it lands). ;P

                    3. He was a sad case. He’d think the same thing when a stripper paid attention to him after he’d paid her.

                3. winners speak of mandate, losers speak of “not getting their message out”, world keeps on spinnin’

              2. They will quit crowing about a mandate when the election results are 34% Team R (or D); 33% the other Team D (or R); 33% LP.

                Which is to say, never.

                1. They certainly didn’t yell mandate when Bush beat Gore in 2000. They yelled “STOLEN ELECTION!!!!” or that it was all Nader’s fault.

  8. But that still gets you booed in South Carolina, a state that, since 1861, has had an affinity for starting wars that do not end well.

    Aw, snap! OH NO HE DIDN’T!

    1. Eww! Did you thee hith thweater? It lookth like Bill Cothby had a garage thale!

    2. LOOK AT YOUR LIFE!! LOOK AT YOUR CHOICES!!!

  9. Gozer: The Choice is made!
    Dr. Peter Venkman: Whoa! Ho! Ho! Whoa-oa!
    Gozer: The Traveller has come!
    Dr. Peter Venkman: Nobody choosed anything!
    [turns to Egon]
    Dr. Peter Venkman: Did you choose anything?
    Dr. Egon Spengler: No.
    Dr. Peter Venkman: [to Winston] Did YOU?
    Winston Zeddemore: My mind is totally blank.
    Dr. Peter Venkman: *I* didn’t choose anything…
    [long pause, Peter, Egon and Winston all look at Ray]
    Dr Ray Stantz: I couldn’t help it. It just popped in there.
    Dr. Peter Venkman: [angrily] What? *What* “just popped in there?”
    Dr Ray Stantz: I… I… I tried to think…
    Dr. Egon Spengler: LOOK!
    [they all look over one side of the roof]
    Dr Ray Stantz: No! It CAN’T be!
    Dr. Peter Venkman: What is it?
    Dr Ray Stantz: It CAN’T be!
    Dr. Peter Venkman: What did you DO, Ray?
    Winston Zeddemore: Oh, shit!
    [they all see a giant cubic white head topped with a sailor hat, Peter looks at Ray]
    Dr Ray Stantz: [somberly] It’s the Stay Puft Marshmallow Man.

    1. Reason needs a photoshopped Newt face on Mister Stay Puft ready to run if Gingrich wins.
      alt text : “Nobody choosed anything!”

      1. Reason needs a photoshopped Newt face on a horse’s ass. No alt text needed.

        1. LOL. So much epic win.

  10. I like the writer, he reminds me of P.J. O’Rourke. The mistress as a job creator line is classic.

    1. I like this line too

      The Left howled when Newt suggested that overpaid union janitors in schools could be replaced by students working part-time to help their schools, develop work habits, and earn some spending money. The Left thinks kids should work for free at ACORN or at community organizing, calling it “volunteering” or “community service.” The Left is OK as long as no one makes any money.

      1. but Newt and his enablers in the conservative/anti-Mormon establishment want it both ways – it’s okay to make a certain amount of money as long as you are neither A) a union member or B) a capitalist.

        The left howled because Newt smacked unions; the right for the same reason. Neither asked if theproposal was actually feasible, such as why it’s a good idea to fire low-skilled grownups in favor of lower-skilled teenagers.

        1. It was a goofy idea. It is just a funny line about community service and ACORN.

          1. it is a good line but I am intrigued by the reaction, or lack of it. Union smackdowns are applause lines for the GOP, like ‘fair share’ for Dems. Neither gets much scrutiny.

          2. Is it really a goofy idea?

            I’m of mind that ALL paid crossing guard positions should be 100% eliminated in lieu of parent volunteers. If having a crossing guard is so fundamentally important to the safety of children, surely the parents of said children would be willing to make sure that little Johnny and Susan can safely cross the street without having to outsource the job to a (unionized) crossing guard.

            Why can the same NOT be said about janitorial services in (high) schools. Because, and it’s hard to imagine saying this, Newt is right. It would provide all of said benefits to participating students. If it is so important to maintain a clean school, why not have students work at a lower cost, while at the same time getting them started in the work force?

  11. a new mistress

    MUST…STOP…HELMET-HAIR!

  12. I have to go against Pro Liberate on this. I think instead of Newcular Titties, he needs to change his name to Gaius Ginrich and do all public appearances wearing a purple toga. If he would do that, Gingrich would have my vote.

    1. And choose Vermin Supreme as his VP.

      1. And carried around on a sedan chair.

        1. And have an attendant cooling him with a giant feather.

          1. And have JC Watts be the attendant for the single purpose of watching liberals’ heads explode at the site of a black man fanning a white man.

            1. Where is Watts these days? Why isn’t he running for anything?

              1. Back in Oklahoma counting his millions.

            2. watts fanning newt? no biggie for a house nig…what did mel brooks say here?

    2. What? Too late–the bandwagon has already sailed into the wild blue yonder.

      1. Come on Pro. Gingrich is such a hack faux classicist, it would be perfect.

        1. My plan, endorsed by groups across the political spectrum, does not involve Newt donning a toga in public.

          I win.

          1. And laurels too. And his platform will be published entirely in Latin hand written on scrolls, which a couple of copies chiseled on large rocks to be placed at various corners of the country.

          2. there is no newcular version in stock. Nor a titties toga. I miss the Romans.

            1. You will get rich making him custom bros.

            2. It’s been a while since a science fiction show or film has portrayed the sartorial future as one of togas, togas, and more togas.

              1. I miss Logan’s Run

                1. Three words Jenny Agutter Toga

              2. So that’s why you love ST:TOS.

                1. Plato’s Stepchildren, bitches!

                  1. Seriously, if I were some punk kid looking to do something odd to piss off my elders, I’d go total Classical period. Toga, Latin catchphrases, the whole cubitus novem. Beats the shit out of acting like a prison inmate or whatever the fuck hipsters are trying to do.

                    1. TOGA THREAD!

                    2. That is a great idea. I think I would go 17th Century, grow my hair long, wear an outfit similar to the pirate captain in the Captain Morgan commercial and carry a rapier wherever I went.

                    3. The problem with that, John, is that it sends a certain other message you might not want to be sending.

                      Togas, on the other hand, are still de rigueur in decadent heterosexual society.

                    4. I say go for the early Christian libertine traditions, pre-Paul. That should knock their socks off.

                    5. There were like 15 Christians pre-Paul.

                    6. That is true. Maybe I will go Norman and wear a helmet, mail and carry a broad sword everywhere. Just call me William.

                    7. Can’t go wrong with Viking. Saxon violence, code of honor, more Saxon violence.

                      No French, though.

                    8. ” Saxon violence, code of honor, more Saxon violence.”

                      Drinking, fighting, and screwing being the three things you spent all your time on in heaven. Its a perfect redneck religion, as long as you can take the occasional day off to fish.

  13. Ok, which one of the feministing chicks will volunteer to be Gaius Gingrich’s concubine in return for pro choice judicial picks? Come on girls, we all have to sacrifice for the cause.

    1. I imagine a man with that many mistress thinks abortion should be legal, despite what he says in public.

      1. No. A man like him understands the public need to ban abortion and has the money to send his mistresses to Canada.

      2. He probably doesn’t care about legal. Just as long as it is available.

  14. “Protecting” America, in these candidates’ eyes, means ? to our detriment ? occupying and nation-building in countries that take our money and resent us. Ron Paul has it right. But that still gets you booed in South Carolina, a state that, since 1861, has had an affinity for starting wars that do not end well.

    That last sentence is a winner.

  15. “If I were registered, I’d send these clowns a message by staying home on election day.”

    1. “All hail our gargantuan cyborg president. May death come quickly to his enemies.”

  16. Funny stuff here from Hart. I vote for an ‘all Ron’ ticket in ’12!

  17. There is one advantage to having Gingrich as the nominee. I always felt was a good guy and was treated unfairly. Even McCain is awful, he was a war hero and I never felt quite right despising the guy.

    But Gingrich is a total piece of work. I would never feel any obligation to defend him as the nominee or as President. And on top of that, unlike Willard, he is so daft he is downright entertaining.

    1. I have to begrudgingly admit that Gingrich could be good for our foreign policy. See, there’s something to be said for having incredible power while simultaneously being viewed as badshit insane. He’ll give America that random walk we so desperately need in international affairs.

      1. There is that. The Mullahs and the Chinese would wet the bed the day he came into office. It would be a good cop bad cop routine after four years of the metrosexual in chief.

      2. Ah, yes. The “Nuke the Moon” approach.

        1. Precisely. And, given Gingrich’s good space policy (yes, he’s actually not bad on that), I’m sure he’s aware of the option and intrigued by its possibilities.

      3. Worked for Reagan.

        1. To be fair, I don’t think Reagan came across so much as insane as in having a secret, insane plan. The Soviets probably got to the point of thinking that Reagan had enlisted the help of the Galactic Confederation to defeat communism towards the end.

          1. Gingrich thinks he is the official representative of the Galactic Confederation.

            He looks like one of the “Grays”, after all.

            1. Gosh, maybe you’re right. Wow, that would be a relief.

    2. “I always felt was a good guy and was treated unfairly”

      Who was a good guy?

      1. Bush II. McCain was never a nice guy. But he was a war hero.

  18. I really like the way this Hart guy writes, smart stuff.

    Gingrich leaped to the top of the Florida primary polls on Sunday. His appeal is primal. Every Republican man in America loves the way he stands up to his ex-wives and every Republican woman secretly believes that she could be Mrs. Gingrich number four.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.