Perry is Dropping Out of the Race

[KRAM1]

Rick Perry is set to announce that he is dropping out of the R race and will throw his support behind Newt. Well, had to happen sooner or later.

[Green P1]

So now he returns to Texas....

Crap.

[Hunter Green]

Rick Perry is set to announce that he is dropping out of the R race and will throw his support behind Newt. Well, had to happen sooner or later.

Newt is my favorite, but the Obama machine, otherwise known as ABC News, is doing a hatchet piece on him tonight. Anything but issues, right?

[DeepGreen]

Newt is my favorite, but the Obama machine, otherwise known as ABC News, is doing a hatchet piece on him tonight. Anything but issues, right?

Same here. A decade old problem and ABC is bringing it up front and center. And it didn't cost the Obama campaign a dime. Think about that.

[DeepGreen]

And if we're lucky, that nut case, Ron Paul will drop out too.

[SilverEagle]

So the national Republican base has shown that it has far more common sense than the Texas Republican base. No surprise there.

Of course, they've been telling Perry to GO AWAY for several weeks now, and now he finally listens. Well, actually some leading Republicans probably sat down with him and grabbed him by both ears and spoke slowly to him so that he could FINALLY UNDERSTAND. Geezz the only thing worse than someone with a huge ego, is an idiot with a huge ego.

I only wish that the late great Molly Ivins was here to verbally pummel him about it.

Otherwise (and this is for you KRAM) I really don't care.

And (DG) for the record, I've always liked Ron Paul. Anyone who nailed Newt as a chicken hawk is aces in my book. AND Ron Paul would be regarded as the anti-Christ by the *Military-Industrial complex. Also aces in my book.

* For those about to call me a socialist/hippie for using that term, please remember that it was coined by former-President-and-former-supreme-allied-commander Dwight D.Eisenhower.....a REPUBLICAN.

Edited January 19, 2012 by SilverEagle

[Coffee and TV]

Same here. A decade old problem and ABC is bringing it up front and center. And it didn't cost the Obama campaign a dime. Think about that.

Gingrich needs no help in making himself look foolish.

[LongJim]

And (DG) for the record, I've always liked Ron Paul. Anyone who nailed Newt as a chicken hawk is aces in my book. AND Ron Paul would be regarded as the anti-Christ by the *Military-Industrial complex. Also aces in my book.

Ron Paul is the only one running who has any stones. He's a traditional Goldwater conservative. The trouble is, "conservative" has been turned on its ear by the neo-cons. I don't agree with all his views, but I admire him greatly.

Also noticed that Paul was the only GOP candidate who came out and forcefully said that the SOPA and PIPA bills suck and would remove a little bit more of our liberty.

The rest won't touch the issue because they are bankrolled by many who support the legislation.

[DeepGreen]

Ron Paul is right-on on several fronts, but disassembling our military to the level he suggests is totally wrong. Not in today's world climate.

Silver, we do disagree on things political, but I respect your position. And first and foremost I consider you a friend.

[LongJim]

Ron Paul is right-on on several fronts, but disassembling our military to the level he suggests is totally wrong. Not in today's world climate.

Deep, I respect your opinion, but mine's different. He's suggested cutting MILITARY spending to 2006 levels, and stopping the pre-emptive, undeclared "wars". No reason for 800+ military bases in countries everywhere. IMO, our military is stretched too thin as it is. We would still spend more than every other country on earth combined if we were to cut military spending to that level.

[meangreendork]

Newt is my favorite, but the Obama machine, otherwise known as ABC News, is doing a hatchet piece on him tonight. Anything but issues, right?

I have mixed feelings about the ABC piece. See, I think it's important to know that Newt wants to preach about morals and sanctity of marriage while doing almost exactly the opposite of that. Normally, I wouldn't care about his personal life, but because he's living or has lived opposite of the policies he wishes to promote, it becomes a matter of integrity.

It's like telling your son not to smoke crack while getting arrested for it 6 times over. The situation really does damage credibility and make the integrity of Newt questionable.

But at the same time, I don't think ABC needs to do a huge piece on it, especially since they should also be trying to maintain, or get, a certain level of journalistic integrity as well. Now, they can do a coverage piece on the candidates and point out all of their flaws, but to go specifically after Newt and just Newt, is a low blow, and one that's telegraphed.

[UNTFan23]

Rick Perry is set to announce that he is dropping out of the R race and will throw his support behind Newt. Well, had to happen sooner or later.

Since Perry decided to go pro, does that mean he is ineligible to run again for governor of Texas?

[UNT90]

Same here. A decade old problem and ABC is bringing it up front and center. And it didn't cost the Obama campaign a dime. Think about that.

Yet where were they on Pres. Obama's connection to Jeramiah Wright, or, more importantly, Bill Ayers?

Nowhere to be found.

Yet, on the eve of a primary that could possibly vault Washington Newt back into contention, they choose to run an attack piece from an ex-wife? Obviously about Newt's personal life?

I don't like him as a nominee, but this is just example #1 as to how conservative candidates for president in this country have to run against the democratic party and the major network (read: free TV networks) media, who will use any and every dirty trick to discredit any conservative threat that they find. The more conservative, the further they will go.

Yet, liberal candidates get a free pass from any investigative journalism whatsoever.

Edited January 19, 2012 by UNT90

[Coffee and TV]

Yet where were they on Pres. Obama's connection to Jeramiah Wright, or, more importantly, Bill Ayers?

That particular search of google news archives only covers 2 days in March 2008.

http://news.google.c...ved=0CC4QqgIwAA

You'll see links to CBS News, ABC news, Boston Globe, Washington Post, ect.

Yet, liberal candidates get a free pass from any investigative journalism whatsoever.

Yeah. Sure.

Edited January 19, 2012 by Coffee and TV

[SilverEagle]

Silver, we do disagree on things political, but I respect your position. And first and foremost I consider you a friend.

Same here.

[UNT90]

That particular search of google news archives only covers 2 days in March 2008.

http://news.google.c...ved=0CC4QqgIwAA

You'll see links to CBS News, ABC news, Boston Globe, Washington Post, ect.

Yeah. Sure.

Typical articles defending Pres. Obama's assocaition and downplaying the relevance.

No investigative piece to see how deep Pres. Obama's ties were to Ayers. No interview of those that knew Pres. Obama at the time of his association as to the depth of the association.

Don't get me wrong. These investigations very well could have helped Pres. Obama. But they were not done by the major networks, because they didn't want to take the chance of finding anything that would hurt their candidate.

And they darn sure didn't wait until 2 days before a primary to air a hit piece on something that has been in the press the last 10 years.

It is what it is, and, sadly, conservatives will have to live with it as long as well over 80% of those working in the network news industry are self proclaimed liberals. If you think that doesn't slant opinion, you are naive.

[Coffee and TV]

Typical articles defending Pres. Obama's assocaition and downplaying the relevance.

That was two random days in March. Do I have to do all the work for you? People looked. There was no there, there. Tony Rezko - nothing. Bill Ayers - little to nothing. Jeremiah Wright - no different than anything Pat Robertson has ever said.

There wasn't even much need for investigative journalism, Clinton's camp had scoured and scoured to find anything that would stick. Nothing did. For a politician, Obama was pretty squeaky clean. Same goes for Romney.

And this whole "two days before a major primary" stuff is nonsense. This info has been known for 10 years. Nothing new will come of this interview. People have known for decades that Gingrich is a scumbag, they don't need his ex-wife to deliver this news.

[UNTFan23]

And this whole "two days before a major primary" stuff is nonsense. This info has been known for 10 years. Nothing new will come of this interview. People have known for decades that Gingrich is a scumbag, they don't need his ex-wife to deliver this news.

If this has been known for 10 years, why bother with the piece in the middle of the primaries? It just looks like someone is trying to torpedo Newt.

[Coffee and TV]

If this has been known for 10 years, why bother with the piece in the middle of the primaries? It just looks like someone is trying to torpedo Newt.

It just looks like it drums up drama and ratings in an otherwise fairly boring primary season. I mean, the Republican Party apparently mismanaged the Iowa Caucus count and won't certify Santorum as the winner, ZOMG conspiracy!

[UNT90]

It just looks like it drums up drama and ratings in an otherwise fairly boring primary season. I mean, the Republican Party apparently mismanaged the Iowa Caucus count and won't certify Santorum as the winner, ZOMG conspiracy!

So, it's nothing to see here when there is a democrat involved, but a mass conspiracy of the rich and military power base against the poor in this country, George W. Bush is a war criminal and lied about weapons of mass destruction in an apparent mass conspiracy, right?

See how one's views influences their opinion.

And we agree, the ABC interview of his ex-wife will bring out nothing new that has not been reported in the last 10 years. But they are still running it, 2 days before a critical primary in the republican race (you said yourself that if Romney wins SC, the race is over.. not that I agree).

And yet you have no desire to question why.

I wonder if we will see either Ayers or Wright re-visited in the Presidential race. I bet not. I wonder why.

[BeanCounterGrad'03]

...but a mass conspiracy of the rich and military power base against the poor in this country, George W. Bush is a war criminal and lied about weapons of mass destruction in an apparent mass conspiracy, right?

Hmm...guess I missed the heavy coverage of this on the major networks.

See how one's views influences their opinion.

Pot...meet kettle.

[Coffee and TV]

So, it's nothing to see here when there is a democrat involved, but a mass conspiracy of the rich and military power base against the poor in this country,

What? Either your reading comprehension is poor or you're being obtuse. My guess is the latter.

George W. Bush is a war criminal and lied about weapons of mass destruction in an apparent mass conspiracy, right?

War criminal? Some would say, but I think that's a bit extreme. His administration did openly admit to torture though.

See how one's views influences their opinion.

No, please give me more lectures on Intro to Psychology professor.

But they are still running it, 2 days before a critical primary in the republican race (you said yourself that if Romney wins SC, the race is over.. not that I agree).

If you're buying into the argument that its some sort of anti-Newt agenda then you'd have to explain the Romeny tax return issue. That has also been brought up recently by the press, a mere week before a critical primary.

And yet you have no desire to question why.

I don't really need to, the obvious answer was in my last post: ratings.

I wonder if we will see either Ayers or Wright re-visited in the Presidential race. I bet not. I wonder why.

Do you really wonder? Do you? Can you really not see the difference? Obama's a sitting president. If anything was there to dig up they would have found it in 2007 or 2008, like they did with Wright. There's nothing new to report in 2012.

Edited January 20, 2012 by Coffee and TV

[Green P1]

Pot...meet kettle.

Totally.