Saturday, March 19, 2011

Gingrich waiting in the dugout for his chance

Gingrich, no surprise here, has found new ways to insult the president after implying his upbringing made him less suitable to be president than say someone born and bred in the deep South, someone who has left two wives as soon as they became sick or disabled, someone who shut down the government under Clinton's watch because he was irked he hadn't been invited to sit in the right part of Air Force One, you know, somebody like that.

He's criticizing Obama now for not immediately bombing Libya (taking up the old McCain theme, I guess) and said he was basically inactive in helping Japan with their nuclear crisis. Oh my let me count the ways that Gingrich is a troll. It's hard to beat the first paragraph for a few of them but keeping it current, is he totally nuts? Probably not, and as for being a troll, he only looks and acts like one. He's actually a grifter. He's one of those smug guys who tells everybody how smart they are and has to always have the last word even if they know nothing about the subject. For all he's supposed to be an intellectual, it's looking less and less likely that he is.

Libya is a complex situation at the very least. If the US goes over there with fighter jets under the auspices of the UN at least we are part of a group. We will have less cost and responsibility for the outcome.

I think everybody can see the concern for the Libyan people, but when it comes to what to do, that gets tougher. The United States has gutted its own manufacturing base by selling it off to the highest bidder in a drive to get more profits for the stock market. That means less jobs to pay for all the things we have taken for granted government can do within its own country, things like maintaining roads, checking on food safety, enforcing regulations on polluters, educating children, managing the safety of the public, protecting our borders, seeing to those aspects of the Constitution that Republicans often seem to want to forget like:
... to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity...
Given what has happened to our jobs, we are hard put to do what the Constitution calls out as duty-- especially with two wars still going on in the Middle East, wars that we had no business fighting except for the need for foreign oil.

So here is Gingrich wanting more wars and mad at the president for not personally cleaning up Japan' nuclear disaster. I just have two questions:

To whom is this man pandering and is it working on them?
Has his current wife ever worried what will happen if she gets sick?


Anonymous said...

You've got his number. - Julie

Kay Dennison said...

I feel and share your pain! This man was born an amoral idiot and has been losing ground ever since.

Igot hisnumber said...

-Blood for oil.
-Did Libya attack us? Tell me again, why are we doing this?
-No congressional approval to go to war.
-Decision made to go to war by folks with no military experience against the advice of military experts.
-We're broke and cannot afford the wars we're already involved in, much less another.
-Whatever happened to "Smart Power"?
Stupid decisions made by stupid people, and this will not end well.
Oh, and have you ever heard of Vera Baker?
I hear she's a mighty sweet lady.

Rain said...

Igot, I let your comment go through but if you want to ever post anything here again, it better either be anonymous or use your own URL because you aren't Drudge.

As for Obama having had an affair, it is an old story that wasn't proven and such attacks are easy to make with any attractive woman working with a politician. There are enough of them that are proven like Gingrich's. Personally whether they have affairs or not isn't something I care to know about. Most of them have.

As for Libya, the argument goes that we were acting with the UN, not going to war unilaterally. A lot of right wingers wanted us to go to war right away. I personally think our doing anything there is questionable but there are so many times (think Rwanda) where we did nothing and many thousands died, that it makes it tough. I don't really like intervening in foreign countries even when it seems tragic to not. I don't think the US will stay involved with Libya... we better not!

Ingineer66 said...

Ummm how many people in Congress voted for the Libyan attack? How many voted to go to war in Iraq? I am no fan of Gingrich, but come on, trying to defend Obama for doing something that he would have been crucified by you for if he was a Republican?

If we were going to go in, then why wait until most of the rebels were dead? I know Obama likes to wait to see which side is going to win before he takes a position something, but this time he waited and jumped in on the side that was losing. The guy really is looking like an empty suit on this one.

Rain said...

If he had done nothing, the right wing would be complaining about that. They waited to see which way he'd go to complain. Ingineer, you just go along with whatever they say... and I didn't defend the Libyan attack here or anywhere else. It was though under the UN which changes it only a bit. And if you defend Gingrich, you get the candidates you deserve--

Rain said...

I might add he waited for the UN and a real coalition force which is more than you can say for Bush on anything. France went first! I know you guys love macho talk and actions but I don't!

Anonymous said...

Friends, friends, friends...

I'm following updates on a website called which has a Presidential 2012 Race section. I've recently discovered Plain Blog About These days in Washington, nobody is ringing my ;) Any suggestions for other political blogs to help clear things up before I cast a vote in 2012? It would be much appreciated. --- Julie

Rain said...

I really hadn't read many political blogs before, not of the right or left kind; but am interested in listing more alongside here and checking them out when my mind can handle it; so thanks for some additional suggestions of good ones. I will take a look at them.

Rain said...

Uh oh. I had the one, I guess and the other one doesn't appear to update. That happens with some of them. But it will be there, just not show up by date because of how it's formatted probably. For anyone who wants to check it out, the recent articles are below some ads and by dates, so very current.

Anonymous said...

Rain, I enjoy the variety of opinions that I find here.

In my humble opinion, I see no politicians who have "descended" from Heaven and if I do, I'm going to be very, very suspicious ;)

You've got a good selection on the blogroll,too. Learning, listening and observing all help me to go into the voting booth ready with information and hopefully common sense. - Julie

Rain said...

It would take a lot for any Republican to convince me to vote for him or her in 2012. The Republican governors have shown us how deceptive some of them run. They run as moderate and thinking people but they get in and bam it is all kinds of right wing religious causes like abortion, gay rights, etc. And stuff like Michigan trying to undo the vote of the people at the will of the governor where it comes to local offices, that tells me what any Republican would do right now.

And then we have Trump who wants to brag he should be voted for because he shystered Gaddafi. We should trust a man who is proud of cheating someone from another country? I don't know who would vote for him on that basis but it's someone who is about to be fleeced.

Ingineer66 said...

Bush had UN and Congressional approval in 2003. And a larger coalition.

I am not bashing Obama for taking action. I am saying he sat on the fence for 2 weeks until it was almost too late and then jumped in. If we were going to do nothing then he should have stuck to his guns, but he does not have any real convictions and changes his beliefs depending on which way the wind blows.

And saying France led the way? With what 2 planes next to our 100? That is like saying Poland led the way into Iraq in 2003. But last time we followed France into a war we ended up with Vietnam.

The hypocrisy by the media and the left right now is just amazing.

Rain said...

Bush got permission from Congress to use the 'threat' of war to try and make Saddam cooperate. Many who gave him that power didn't expect him to abuse it as he did. And as for a coalition... some of those countries back then sent in 20 soldiers. Give me a break. When it comes to hypocrisy at the least Republicans have nothing to talk about.

In this case many on the left don't like what is happening with Libya one bit; so it's really more about who likes to use guns to solve things and who does not. The idea that a leader should jump into war makes zero sense to someone like me but the right loves the talk tough stuff.

Time will tell whether Obama waited too long or made the right choice. Whatever he had done, it wouldn't have been liked by the right. And that's a fact. You say he does what the majority want and then say the majority don't want something. I say you just don't like him and didn't vote for him and hence find fault with what he does.

The issue by the way here was Gingrich... and what he said. Are you defending him or maybe Boehner or any of the other good old boys who support the wealthy, support wars whenever it's their side leading the charge?

Rain said...

Incidentally, his coalition of the 'willing' was a farce. Some got something for saying they were on it. Some had never agreed and ended up on it anyway. Only three contributed to the invasion-- the UK, Australia and Poland. Supposedly it was 49 countries although Costa Rica said they never agreed and hence it ended up 48 that involved such great military powers as the Marshall Islands, Micronesia, Palau and Solomon Islands. The government of one country, the Solomon Islands, listed by the White House as a member of the coalition, was apparently unaware of any such membership and promptly denied it. Check it out. It was a joke and nothing like what contributed to Desert Storm under President Bush the I.

In this case, do we want the blame or the credit or both if we say it's not the UN and is us?