Rich Galen on Newt’s no go decision.

From the Mullings blog.

I talked with Rick Tyler, long time pal and Newt


  1. BubbaRich says:

    I suspect you misspelled that Newt could scam $millions from his proletariat via American Solutions, whereas he would be very limited in his ability to take money, and in the ways he could use said money, if he ran for President.

    And also that his complete and utter failure of a presidential campaign would only serve to force other candidates to take some of his wierder fringe positions in order to get the nomination, which would then condemn the eventual Republican nominee to a crushing defeat of his own next November.

    I don’t think this choice was hard for Newt, although he might have enjoyed forcing more Republicans into line with him.

    Newt wants to limit free speech (he thinks the 1st amendment is over-used by people who disagree with him) and he thinks that a mere accusation that someone is a terrorist is enough to treat them differently in US and international law, and to assume the person actually is a terrorist until they prove they are not. I, personally, think that makes him a terrorist out to destroy American rights, and under his rules that justifies putting him in jail with no rights or trial.

    But Newt thinks he’s really smart, and he’s fooled enough people into agreeing with him. And he does have a certain low canniness about him, in his ability to have sex with an intern while prosecuting Bill Clinton for the same thing.

  2. Harry says:

    On the subject of elections, here’s what I wrote to Cynthia Tucker concerning her advocacy of the Supreme Court overturning Voter ID laws:

    It’s not as simple as you make it. True, not having an ID is not normally an open invitation to fraud, except maybe when there’s a close election. Here’s the problem: On election day in south Atlanta, if you live in a poor neighborhood haven’t voted by say 4.00, a city or county government worker “volunteeer” will show up and escort you to the poll. It’s known as knock and drag, and it’s using taxpayer government resources to get people to the polls who have no knowledge of the issues (other than who is Democrat and Republican) or motivation to vote. That’s not right. If they are not self-motivated, then they shouldn’t become a pawn and shouldn’t be “persuaded” to vote. Yes, many of these are elderly or don’t have driver licenses. In order to get these people a voter ID, it would require additional time spent in advance by Democratic party workers (ie often government workers organized by a government union and thus using taxpayer resources), in other words additional effort would be needed, and would in many cases not be feasible. Thus the opposition to voter ID by Democrats.

    You’ll give this no further thought, because it doesn’t fit your worldview of the “Democratic process”.

  3. GodHatesTrash says:

    Let’s face it, Harry – if stumpbroke inbred redneck idjits like you can vote, why not let some little old black lady vote if someone can get her to the polls?

    She might not be as motivated as you, but no way is she as dumb.

    It’s all good.

  4. CHelf says:

    Let’s see. Push an organization that facilitates thinking on making changes OR holding office that has the power to actually make the changes or at least the means of the bully pulpit to push changes. Looking at the scales one would think President would hold more weight to make more of a difference. Something else is wrong here. I saw somewhere that the money here was not as prolific as it needs to be as well. So if negative factors are involved I guess it is better to lose face, if the case, with an organization, rather than lose face losing an election…right Sen. Kerry?

  5. Nicki says:

    Ha. ha. ha. What that memo actually meant was Newt wasn’t going to win and preferred to sink his money into more profitable ventures.

Comments are closed.