The Paddock

You realize that it was NOT the same thing... Clinton lied under oath about having an affair. Newt never did that so far as I'm aware. I could be wrong though...

I don't blame Clinton though as a lot of people lie under oath about affairs.

Of course Newt is a hypocrite no matter how nuanced he tries to delineate the difference. The whold premise of why Bill Clinton was "unfit" for office in the 92 election was due to his "indiscretions" (hello Jeniffer Flowers) and the unknown bimbo eruptions. Does anybody really believe Newt kept his infidelities limited to two mistresses??

Is being a serial adulterer disqualifying?? For some yes and some no but being a hypocrite on top of it should leave no doubt about Newt who will say or do anything to advance his cause. From his lies about his hand in creating supply side economics, to a Reagan ally in the Cold War to being the keeper of modern conservative thought who denounced Paul Ryan's budget plan. This guy truly has no moral or ethical moorings and again, I wouldn't vote for him if he were the last person on earth.

Before Clinton lied to anyone is what I'm talking about. You aren't understanding what I'm saying. There was years of Newt and others going after Clinton for this before he ever lied to a grand jury. Newt was doing the exact same thing Clinton was doing while he was going after Clinton. He's disgusted about others asking him while he himself was asking someone else the same stuff. Clinton perjuring himself is irrelevant to the point I'm making.

Republicans will take this as an attack but it's not. It's just the reality of the situation. It really speaks to the republican party that Newt is even considered a candidate for president. It would be like the Democrats brushing off Dukakis and having him become a serious candidate.

Dukakis: Good Guy--Unlikable

Clinton: Bad Guy--Likable

Obama: Good Guy--Likable

Gingrich: Bad Guy--Unlikable

and I'm talking about the people in their parties. Gingrich is pretty much the worst of all possible worlds from a personal/personality/morality standpoint.

There's some people you can just look at and tell they are mega a-holes. Newt is one of them. Rush Limbaugh is another.

I've never thought it'd be anybody different than Mitt vs. Obama.

I think the biggest question now is whether it will be Mitt vs. Obama vs. somebody else

Some think Paul might run as an independent, but I don't think so. I think it'd mess things up for Rand as a Republican, in the future, and there was an article this morning that surprisingly told how Mitt and Ron were pretty big buddies.

Trump's big show today about who he will endorse will add some clarity. If he endorses Romney, then he won't run, but if he endorses Newt, I think that means he's scoping out his own run.

As for debating skills, Newt is way overrated. It's just as important to hush as it is to say something, and Newt has a problem cutting himself off. But I don't think the Obama-Mitt debates will be anything too exciting. Both are disciplined and stay on message, which eliminates mistakes but isn't much fun to watch.

Unemployment fell again. It's down to 8.3%. That's the lowest since Feb 2009. That spiked yet another flurry on wall street. If this trend continues it really takes the wind out of Mitts sails. Only the people in the bubble will vote for Mitt. The scary thing is about 35% of America resides in the bubble.

Woot! Woot!

The more Santorum talks the more I want him to win the nomination.

Are you for Obama?

I'm not going to vote for anyone. But Santorum winning the nomination is handing a 2nd term to Obama.

He needs to figure out how to tax emoticon usage