Had this crazy thought 2 days ago...

IF Newt became President , the First lady would be an adulteress and responsible for breaking up a marriage. Oh that's a nice image for the First Lady of the USA !!

And the GOP complained about Hillary and now some about Michelle. Gawd they are such petty whiners !!

Third wives don't make first ladies.



God, I wish I could take credit for that, forgot where I heard it. [meow] Mrs. Newt is one of the weirdest looking things I've ever seen. A woman with an angular face and witchy nose normally looks to soften her features with a hair style that doesn't resemble a platinum helmet with tail fins. [/meow]

So, did Romney pay the second Mrs. Newt for today's performance? Oh, and open marriage? No, what Newt proposed to second Mrs. Newt was "I continue to dip my hubris dripping wick and you live with it." That's not an open marriage, that's the definitive definition of a dick.

Open marriage goes like this ~ Second Mrs. Newt and Newt both agree that they'll do whoever, whenever and stay married to each other. But I'll lay down good money that all we're gonna hear for the next 24-48 is open marriage. Romney got his money's worth.

Not that Newt doesn't deserve it.

As much as I despise Gingrinch, King deserved to get bitch slapped for that boneheaded opening question. I guess CNN is now officially in the tabloid league. Why not just lead with a "My Baby's Father Was A Martian!" headline. Ugh!

I knew she reminded me of someone.

From Mars Attacks. Which is witch?

Euweee, Reboot... I think you're onto something, buddy !!

Lea, maybe Newt's 3rd and Christine Whitmann were separated at birth ! I like that phrase - I had not heard it !!

Steve: why is everyone hung on it being the 1st opening question ? That was the "hot topic" yesterday. I think it's legitimate especially where it's pointing to (Newt) who started this turd throwing match back in 1988 !! Sure they could have save it but Newt's answer would have been the same even if it were the last question. Newt is throwing a temper tantrum like he did on Air Force One a few years ago. The egotistical blowhard needs to grow up.

The irony here is that the MSM is rubbing Newts nose into his bad mistake, the same way he rubbed his 2nd wife nose into issues about their "pseudo" marriage. couldn't be more deserving !

Dave, a debate among POTUS wannabes should be about real issues, policy, things that directly affect the security and well-being of the country and it's citizens. Sensationalist, tabloid junk like that — while germane to one's personal lifestyle and habits — should not be the lead issue.

I think we the peeps are smart enough to sort these things out and put them in the proper context when it's decision-making time.

Plus, Gingrinch has already made it patently clear that he's running against the media maybe even more intensely than against Obama — and King walked right into a hard left cross with that opening question and should have known that in front of that crowd, it would hand Gingrinch a gold platter-full of martyrdom!

Yeah no argument there..

The only problem I have with the substance issue is all the GOP debates have been a bunch of nebulous fluff. Newt calls BO "The most dangerous President of our time!" WTF!!? How does he measure that?
They talk about job creation but don't give 1 f-ing plan or any details... just cut taxes and they'll all mysteriously appear !! Forget that that "solution" hasn't worked the last 4 years.
Talk about nuclear Iran.. how do they plan to stop them? Invade? NO specifics. How did Bush NOT stop N Korea?
I agree it should be about issues and policies, but so far is a super freighter load of steaming elephant sh!!TT.

.
nebulous fluff?
-*-*-*-*-


I have watched all of the debates. Nebulous fluff! Maybe, but to me it was all mostly scarey! Really scarey.

The sad thing that none of it -- not one iota -- was nebulous fluff to the audiences. It was all pep talk and they ate it up like Hot Fudge Sundaes!

Most of what, well let's say ALL of what, the candidates are saying they'll do or promising we know is election rhetoric. Democratic candidates do the same thing. They say what they think their constituency would like to hear just to get elected.

Why? Well, when one does get elected there is no way this new President is going to be able to control all the factors to get his/her programmes put into law/action. The prez may win a few here and there with "scratch my back, I'll scratch yours." Otherwise known as "compromizing." Boehnor will not even say that word! Even while admitting he had done so on occasion with Democrats.

But when I think about having a Republican president again, I can really get down in the dumps.

.

Don't blame you Kate, if I believed their BS was true, it would be very scary !

And it is scary that some DO ! Like WTF did they get their education? Mississippi ?? Louisana bayou ?? Appalachia ? ?

Exactly. If you're going to open with that to newt are you going to ask the other candidates if they've ever used a hooker, or cheated on their wives or how many girls did they screw at school??? It's a question maybe for a 1-on-1 interview, not for a debate between presidential hopefuls - are you going to open the question for the other candidates to comment on also? Absolute dumbness on the moderators part.

Yep. By asking that out loud he gave Newt the chance to totally deflate the situation. If he had not asked, then it would have been the 800 lb gorilla/elephant in the room.

Last night RM set out several very actionable ways in which King could have broached the subject — challenging Gingrinch on the hypocrisy angle among them — ways to frame the question that would have forced Noot the Hoot to confront much more substantive moral/ethical/judgement-based issues. Just asking him if he'd "like to talk about it" was as lame as it gets.

Nothing at all wrong with asking that question first. It was hot, new news and that's what gets thrown up first. Gingrich turned it around and tried to make CNN look like the bad guys and the idiots from South Carolina bought it. Gingrich said he couldn't think of anything more despicable. Umm, how about doing what the question imposed? As far as real issues...to republicans, the values/ethics is a huge one. Unless it's them violating it. Gingrich is now the values king.

There's asking a cogent question for the purpose of setting up an issue, and there's tripping flatfooted on the doorsill and doing a face plant. Bandaid, anyone?

This is an idiotic question to ask starting this forum by John King.There are more important questions to ask Newt not this nonsense.His ethic violations as one and his lobbying tactics he denied.Let us see what NBC Brian Williams ask Gingrich in Florida.

I don't disagree that maybe it should have been reserved for mid-debate, but what buring question would you ask that'd be a relevant question? Like how specifically would you as President create jobs? and then watch them all "dance" around the question and not say a damm thing !

What we need in these debates is a team of "Fact Checkers" so that within minutes the moderator can embarass the hell out of them by saying their statemnets were not factual, or half truth, or a "pants on Fire" lie. Then maybe they'd be a little more careful throw BS around to see what sticks. Noot is one of the worst.

Problem is 90% of the debate is fluff and about as showy as big time wrestling ! "and there goes Noot with a body slam to Romney..but wait his tag team partner Paul is leaping into the ring folks and he's got Noot in a spinning Iranian toe hold !"