Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

Link to follow - saw it on foxnews.com.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/01 ... tial-race/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

What does this do for the primary this weekend? Less fragmentation = a pickup for Newt, Romney, Santorum?

Discuss.

I don't think it will make a damn bit of difference. He wasn't even on the radar screen anymore. Even in SC.

I believe he was the last of the "God told me to run" candidates...

Gingrich will get the nomination then get his ass kicked by Obama.

Next....

∞∞∞ wrote:I believe he was the last of the "God told me to run" candidates...

Santorum

I think it will help Newt most of all, but it's still Romney's race to lose.

Ivytalk wrote:I don't think it will make a damn bit of difference. He wasn't even on the radar screen anymore. Even in SC.

Maybe not - but even if he was pulling 5-10% support in SC throwing that behind either Gingrich or Romney would be pretty decisive (if the pundits are correct that it will be as close as they say). He's publicly endorsing Newt, but we'll see how it pans out.

I was surprised that Romney was winning in SC in the first place. I said the other day that if he'd win it he'd have the nomination. As of now, Paul won't win the nomination and I'd imagine that Santorum will drop out soon due to $$$, see the writing on the wall, and endorse Newt.

No Republican candidate has ever lost the SC primary and won the nomination. Gingrich and Romney were pulling it close in SC, with Gingrich having a slight lead, now it looks like Gingrich has some cushion between him. If he wins Texas, which looks very much probably, I think he'll have enough momentum to have the nomination well ahead of the convention

youngterrier wrote:I was surprised that Romney was winning in SC in the first place. I said the other day that if he'd win it he'd have the nomination. As of now, Paul won't win the nomination and I'd imagine that Santorum will drop out soon due to $$$, see the writing on the wall, and endorse Newt.

No Republican candidate has ever lost the SC primary and won the nomination. Gingrich and Romney were pulling it close in SC, with Gingrich having a slight lead, now it looks like Gingrich has some cushion between him. If he wins Texas, which looks very much probably, I think he'll have enough momentum to have the nomination well ahead of the convention

Am I the only one that finds it hilarious that God's candidates are lining up behind the morally-challenged Gingrich? Now Gingrich is praising Palin, this becomes more comical by the minute. I know Paul won't win the nomination, but isn't it amazing that he's clearly the most serious candidate?

ASUMountaineer wrote:

youngterrier wrote:I was surprised that Romney was winning in SC in the first place. I said the other day that if he'd win it he'd have the nomination. As of now, Paul won't win the nomination and I'd imagine that Santorum will drop out soon due to $$$, see the writing on the wall, and endorse Newt.

No Republican candidate has ever lost the SC primary and won the nomination. Gingrich and Romney were pulling it close in SC, with Gingrich having a slight lead, now it looks like Gingrich has some cushion between him. If he wins Texas, which looks very much probably, I think he'll have enough momentum to have the nomination well ahead of the convention

Am I the only one that finds it hilarious that God's candidates are lining up behind the morally-challenged Gingrich? Now Gingrich is praising Palin, this becomes more comical by the minute. I know Paul won't win the nomination, but isn't it amazing that he's clearly the most serious candidate?

Morally challenged applies to 99.85% of candidates, congress, etc. I agree on Paul - probably a wasted vote, but I can't get a good vibe out of either Romney or Newt. At least Paul has stuck to his views over the years......

ASUG8 wrote:

ASUMountaineer wrote:
Am I the only one that finds it hilarious that God's candidates are lining up behind the morally-challenged Gingrich? Now Gingrich is praising Palin, this becomes more comical by the minute. I know Paul won't win the nomination, but isn't it amazing that he's clearly the most serious candidate?

Morally challenged applies to 99.85% of candidates, congress, etc. I agree on Paul - probably a wasted vote, but I can't get a good vibe out of either Romney or Newt. At least Paul has stuck to his views over the years......

Oh heck man, I'm morally-challenged too. But, I'm not running for president, or proven myself to be a hypocrite on the campaign trail. I find zero credibility in Newt. In fact, I'd vote for Romney over Newt, and Romney thinks a business is a person. We've reached a sad point in America where politicians rule the day and statesmen are MIA.

ASUMountaineer wrote:

ASUG8 wrote:
Morally challenged applies to 99.85% of candidates, congress, etc. I agree on Paul - probably a wasted vote, but I can't get a good vibe out of either Romney or Newt. At least Paul has stuck to his views over the years......

Oh heck man, I'm morally-challenged too. But, I'm not running for president, or proven myself to be a hypocrite on the campaign trail. I find zero credibility in Newt. In fact, I'd vote for Romney over Newt, and Romney thinks a business is a person. We've reached a sad point in America where politicians rule the day and statesmen are MIA.

Who would want to subject themselves to the vetting process? You'd have to live the life of a monk to go into it with any confidence, and even then I'd be nervous about what the media establishment might construct about my past. Politics is a dirty business and you're going to develop some baggage from participating in it, but I wouldn't want to subject my family and friends to the scrutiny for what might be a failed campaign. Herman Cain is probably sitting at home right now wondering why the hell he got himself into this mess in the pursuit of power.

Newt might have screwed himself with this....

If Newt Gingrich wins the White House in November, the former House speaker said Wednesday Sarah Palin may get a big seat at the table.

"I would ask her to consider taking a major role in the next administration if I'm president, but nothing has been discussed of any kind," Gingrich said on CNN's "The Situation Room with Wolf Blitzer."

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/20 ... hpt=hp_bn3" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

ASUG8 wrote:Newt might have screwed himself with this....

If Newt Gingrich wins the White House in November, the former House speaker said Wednesday Sarah Palin may get a big seat at the table.

"I would ask her to consider taking a major role in the next administration if I'm president, but nothing has been discussed of any kind," Gingrich said on CNN's "The Situation Room with Wolf Blitzer."

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/20 ... hpt=hp_bn3" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

He's toast.

ASUG8 wrote: Morally challenged applies to 99.85% of candidates, congress, etc. I agree on Paul - probably a wasted vote, but I can't get a good vibe out of either Romney or Newt. At least Paul has stuck to his views over the years......

I'm sorry, but Ron Paul comes off as the crazy old professor, especially in debates. That whiney voice, combined with some really WACKY ideas (ZERO percent tax rate??? Seriously???) makes him make Santorum look sane.

This is a two-horse race right now between Romney and Gingrich (which is a minor miracle given the staff exodus he experienced early in the process). Should be interesting....

ASUG8 wrote:Newt might have screwed himself with this....

If Newt Gingrich wins the White House in November, the former House speaker said Wednesday Sarah Palin may get a big seat at the table.

"I would ask her to consider taking a major role in the next administration if I'm president, but nothing has been discussed of any kind," Gingrich said on CNN's "The Situation Room with Wolf Blitzer."

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/20 ... hpt=hp_bn3" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

AZGrizFan wrote:

ASUG8 wrote: Morally challenged applies to 99.85% of candidates, congress, etc. I agree on Paul - probably a wasted vote, but I can't get a good vibe out of either Romney or Newt. At least Paul has stuck to his views over the years......

I'm sorry, but Ron Paul comes off as the crazy old professor, especially in debates. That whiney voice, combined with some really WACKY ideas (ZERO percent tax rate??? Seriously???) makes him make Santorum look sane.

This is a two-horse race right now between Romney and Gingrich (which is a minor miracle given the staff exodus he experienced early in the process). Should be interesting....

As much as I dislike Santorum, he's not a nut when he talks about economic policy - whether you agree with him or not, if that's all you saw of him he'd be a fantastic candidate. However, all that goes out the window when you steer the discussion towards beastiality and other such topics that he can't stop himself from commenting on and he ends up making crazy people look sane. Completely unelectable. Remember, this is a guy who went from being a tremendous candidate and winner of the Senate seat in PA only to turn it around and get absolutely thumped in a following election. There's a reason for that and up these ways we call it bein crazy.

GannonFan wrote:

AZGrizFan wrote:
I'm sorry, but Ron Paul comes off as the crazy old professor, especially in debates. That whiney voice, combined with some really WACKY ideas (ZERO percent tax rate??? Seriously???) makes him make Santorum look sane.

This is a two-horse race right now between Romney and Gingrich (which is a minor miracle given the staff exodus he experienced early in the process). Should be interesting....

As much as I dislike Santorum, he's not a nut when he talks about economic policy - whether you agree with him or not, if that's all you saw of him he'd be a fantastic candidate. However, all that goes out the window when you steer the discussion towards beastiality and other such topics that he can't stop himself from commenting on and he ends up making crazy people look sane. Completely unelectable. Remember, this is a guy who went from being a tremendous candidate and winner of the Senate seat in PA only to turn it around and get absolutely thumped in a following election. There's a reason for that and up these ways we call it bein crazy.

You're both assuming the system itself is sane. Which it's not.

kalm wrote:

GannonFan wrote:
As much as I dislike Santorum, he's not a nut when he talks about economic policy - whether you agree with him or not, if that's all you saw of him he'd be a fantastic candidate. However, all that goes out the window when you steer the discussion towards beastiality and other such topics that he can't stop himself from commenting on and he ends up making crazy people look sane. Completely unelectable. Remember, this is a guy who went from being a tremendous candidate and winner of the Senate seat in PA only to turn it around and get absolutely thumped in a following election. There's a reason for that and up these ways we call it bein crazy.

You're both assuming the system itself is sane. Which it's not.

Well, even our system, with all its flaws, is still solid enough that there's no way Santorum will ever be a viable national candidate. That at least comes down in the plus column when evaluating our system.

GannonFan wrote:

kalm wrote:
You're both assuming the system itself is sane. Which it's not.

Well, even our system, with all its flaws, is still solid enough that there's no way Santorum will ever be a viable national candidate. That at least comes down in the plus column when evaluating our system.

Oops. I was talking about the economic system and more specifically Paul. I'm not convinced that anyone really has a fucking clue what's best for the country as a whole. At best, a few understand it enough to manipulate it for personal gain. Paul would simplify.

ASUG8 wrote:

ASUMountaineer wrote:
Oh heck man, I'm morally-challenged too. But, I'm not running for president, or proven myself to be a hypocrite on the campaign trail. I find zero credibility in Newt. In fact, I'd vote for Romney over Newt, and Romney thinks a business is a person. We've reached a sad point in America where politicians rule the day and statesmen are MIA.

Who would want to subject themselves to the vetting process? You'd have to live the life of a monk to go into it with any confidence, and even then I'd be nervous about what the media establishment might construct about my past. Politics is a dirty business and you're going to develop some baggage from participating in it, but I wouldn't want to subject my family and friends to the scrutiny for what might be a failed campaign. Herman Cain is probably sitting at home right now wondering why the hell he got himself into this mess in the pursuit of power.

It is dirty, and it is nasty. With the polarizing of society, the game has gotten that much dirtier.

Of course, Newt has no one to blame but himself for what he's going through. With the way he has conducted his personal life to then chastise a sitting president for the same thing. Now, he knows this baggage is out there and runs anyway (like John Edwards), he can't help himself. He claims to be a "values" candidate, but gets defensive when someone questions his "values." The media and the politicians have made a mockery of the process.

AZGrizFan wrote:

ASUG8 wrote: Morally challenged applies to 99.85% of candidates, congress, etc. I agree on Paul - probably a wasted vote, but I can't get a good vibe out of either Romney or Newt. At least Paul has stuck to his views over the years......

I'm sorry, but Ron Paul comes off as the crazy old professor, especially in debates. That whiney voice, combined with some really WACKY ideas (ZERO percent tax rate??? Seriously???) makes him make Santorum look sane.

This is a two-horse race right now between Romney and Gingrich (which is a minor miracle given the staff exodus he experienced early in the process). Should be interesting....

Is this why you "like" Ron Paul 2012 on Facebook?

Gingrich's hypocrisy is the problem. He was speechifying family values while asking his wife for an open marriage. And after last nights debate with Newt taking John King to the woodshed over the first question being about the allegations and getting a standing ovation for it, it's the hypocrisy of the entire party that's so delicious.

kalm wrote:Gingrich's hypocrisy is the problem. He was speechifying family values while asking his wife for an open marriage. And after last nights debate with Newt taking John King to the woodshed over the first question being about the allegations and getting a standing ovation for it, it's the hypocrisy of the entire party that's so delicious.

I would have been embarrassed to be in that audience last night.

kalm wrote:Gingrich's hypocrisy is the problem. He was speechifying family values while asking his wife for an open marriage. And after last nights debate with Newt taking John King to the woodshed over the first question being about the allegations and getting a standing ovation for it, it's the hypocrisy of the entire party that's so delicious.

I've got to vote tomorrow and I'm still undecided. Normally someone would jump out by now, but for every thing I find interesting about a candidate I can find an equal negative offset. It's pretty sad.