Yeah, right. Reagan was for unions as a Democrat and member/leader, then he was against as in air traffic controllers as a Republican president. Reagan was another 'bomb thrower' as in 'Mr. Gorbachov, tear down this [Berlin] wall' to avoid war, but he invaded Granada. Which side of these issues is 'spades'? Debating isn't governing, a fact you should ponder carefully to keep all the freedoms and rights you now have and would lose under NG policies.
There are many 'smart' men running for office. One drawback is they can overthink issues and NG does that. He's winging it, mostly on his own so there's nobody to advise, temper, subdue radical 'bomb throwing'. That's what he's infamous for and what got him bounced from his Speakership by his own party. NG policies like all those from right wing candidates are contrary to the best interests of the real engine of growth and everything that makes this country great--the middle class. Children; immigrants; unions; women; pensioners--all have much to fear from an overthought set of policies by NG and the rest of the intellects still running for president. We saw the downside from 2001-2009 and today's wing nuts are farther to the right including the 'smart' man.
The tiger Newt Leroy Gingrich doesn't change its stripes. Radicalism, upsetting the applecart, attacking right and left alike, casting unfounded aspersions, pushing the ethics envelope are all part of the stripes. NG can't help himself. It's like the country mouse living in the city--he just doesn't fit. His intellect is OK in a small pond--Georgia, single congressional district--but expands beyond his level of competence on the congressional and national stage. Like all the right wing presidential candidates in 2011-12 his policies are narrowly focused, self-serving, limited in effectiveness and not adaptable to the national and global scenes. Can you picture throwing the military at Iran without provocation or on Bush/Cheney flimsy evidence? Can you see him arousing Kim Il Un to attack South Korea after being insulted? Can you see Pakistan retaliating to an insult by attacking weak democracy India? Can you see Merkel/Sarkozy reacting to NG insults, or China retaliate to trade or currency insults? It's not worth the certain diminishing and tarnishing of the USA by electing NG.
There is no envy of wealthy. The good life doesn't require millionnaire status, just growing disposable income. For decades culminating with President Clinton, this was happening as described above. Economic mobility and social climbing went together with expanded lifestyles and wealth, something to ascribe to, not envy. If anything, now middle class families aren't envious, they are angry that the truly wealthy have rigged the system to take more of the worlds expanding wealth by automation with robots/computers and layoffs instead of retraining. That's OWS nationally and globally as the world shrinks economically and socially. Until conservative policies and actions at state and national levels, voters will continue transferring power to the progressives and left to redress the lost balance and recover the good life and fairness they need.
You are confusing 'keeping up with the Joneses' with 'envy'. With middle class wages stagnant since 1980 under Reagan families have splintered with 2 wage earners and lines of credit/2nd mortgages to maintain the good life. Right wing policies and power have actually worked to undermine the very 'christian ethics' they propose to support. Remember George Orwell's 1984--war is peace-type opposites? Instead of keeping women 'barefoot' and 'pregnant' at home reactionaries on the right have driven them into the world to help bring home the bacon. Union busting and unequal wages for women have exacerbated the problem. When the housing bubble popped, banks foreclosed on second mortgages and then primary mortgages, a double punch American families could barely survive and many didn't. They either walked away from mortgages or went bankrupt, defeating conservative and evangelical aims big time.
The subject at hand is federal Executive Branch refusal to submit to state Judicial Subpoena. It's separation of powers AND separation of government levels. No state can reject the presidential nominee as you state--unless of course in the case of secession which was decided by civil war against that notion. You and TX Gov. Perry and white supremacists/antebellum dreamers/civil rights regressives are all off base, as is this attempted imposition of States Rights on Federal perogatives. Your fact-free, regressive, anachronistic and unAmerican statements cause minor ripples in the big pond of electoral politics. You are trying to relive history of over 160 years ago contrary to your own professed hero Abraham Lincoln. Let's see if GA can follow through on actions you like to make trouble for another sitting president. Do you really want the USA to become a third world country with domestic terrorists running amok?
This is your right wing states' rights politics run amok. States don't tell the president what to do. Right wingers don't rule over Constitutional perogatives. Judges don't rule the executive branch. Glad to see the Prez, his advisors and judiciary department are resisting this barely veiled antebellum 'stuff'.
The subject is Romney being no Reagan. You have the advantage hiding behind your anonymous avatar. But real political animals like Reagan and me are too far from right wing partisans of today to pay much attention to gender slurs that add nothing to the debate. Reagan started public life as a Democrat remember? Acted center right, just like many rational, compromising and flexible pols--NOT like the radical, racist, sexist, regressives you find in these blogs. Either state your point of view for discussion of the subject/issue or leave the debate comments to capable hands.
There's nothing in the bible that defines the moment of conception, so all Christian Right's efforts there are overreaching the bible--a grab for power, not morality. The New Testament sets men and women equal so why are CRs limiting womens' reproductive rights of biblical 'free will' and diminishing their healthcare resources (say in NE)? I don't want a clergyman leading this country any more than I want libertine. Keep your religious principles to yourself, follow them carefully, and we have no beef. I'm personally living the Way and wish everybody would--get knowledge and understanding, ask for wisdom--biblical dictates not evident in many 'religious' right leaders and followers today.
Another unidentifed writer. . . Read Amendment I again yourself--it's called the 'separation' clause. Remember bill passage is congressional--it's their transparency that's lacking. Call you congressman and senators about that. You ignore the Speaker, pressured by TEA caucus ideologues, walking away from BIG cuts to the deficit proposed by the president. Pay attention to facts. Use of any law and precedents by courts is up to a predominantly Republican appointed judiciary--congress refuses to duly and routinely appoint Obama's nominees. It's Europe that fights Sharia law encroachment, not the USA bound by its Constitution, case laws and precedents. Upon dismissal from the service, you're not under oath any more. Remember that--you're just like me, and 300 million other Americans.
![[Avatar]](/images/avatar26.png){kind=avatar}
Joint