Iowa poll gives Newt Gingrich big lead over Mitt Romney

[Gerald]

Surging Republican presidential candidate Newt Gingrich has a double-digit lead over Mitt Romney in the key election state of Iowa, a poll shows.The former House of Representatives Speaker was on 33%, compared with 18% for Mr Romney and Ron Paul in the ABC News/Washington Post survey.Meanwhile, it was reported Mr Romney had erased email records in his last weeks as governor of Massachusetts.The contenders are competing to become next year's Republican nominee.In January, Iowa will hold the first in a series of state-by-state contests that will help pick the party's candidate to challenge Barack Obama for the White House in November 2012.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-16055203


note: 6 December 2011 Last updated at 19:49 GMT

[Gerald]

[Platapus]

Gonna be an interesting race.

I have always thought that the number one qualification for President is the ability to "make the deal" with congress. The president does not tell congress anything. The president asks congress and congress (regardless of party affiliation) will make damn sure that any president (regardless of party affiliation) never forgets it.

So for a president to be successful, they have to be able to make the deals with congress. To work with both houses of congress. No president can succeed without the cooperation of congress.

This is why I don't understand why so many consider the POTUS to be an entry level job.

With that understanding, Newton is probably the best experienced candidate running this year for POTUS. Now whether he can, in 2013+ still make the deal is unknown. But he is the only candidate running in 2012 who has demonstrated past performance in "making the deal".

And that includes our incumbent POTUS.

This would mean that I would think that the best candidates for President are experienced Senators. And generally that's what I believe. The problem is that experienced Senators are experienced in exactly what we don't need any more of -- status quo.

So I am always in a quandary.

1. I want someone who is experienced in making the deals with congress
2. I don't want an experienced Senator who will just do the same wrong things we have been doing for the past 30+ years.
3. I don't want a "washington outsider" because we need someone who can make the deal



I wonder if that means that I think that a lobbyist might make a good POTUS? Lobbyists are certainly experienced in making deals with congress.

I tend to cut all presidents a lot of slack solely on the fact that they are the ones in the hot seat and frankly, the rest of us are clueless about what the president has to deal with on a daily basis.

But when it comes to "making the deal", President Obama has not been very successful. POTUS is not an entry level job.

So how do I find a candidate who has experience but does not have experience?

[Gerald]

Originally Posted by Platapus

Gonna be an interesting race.

I have always thought that the number one qualification for President is the ability to "make the deal" with congress. The president does not tell congress anything. The president asks congress and congress (regardless of party affiliation) will make damn sure that any president (regardless of party affiliation) never forgets it.

So for a president to be successful, they have to be able to make the deals with congress. To work with both houses of congress. No president can succeed without the cooperation of congress.

This is why I don't understand why so many consider the POTUS to be an entry level job.

With that understanding, Newton is probably the best experienced candidate running this year for POTUS. Now whether he can, in 2013+ still make the deal is unknown. But he is the only candidate running in 2012 who has demonstrated past performance in "making the deal".

And that includes our incumbent POTUS.

This would mean that I would think that the best candidates for President are experienced Senators. And generally that's what I believe. The problem is that experienced Senators are experienced in exactly what we don't need any more of -- status quo.

So I am always in a quandary.

1. I want someone who is experienced in making the deals with congress
2. I don't want an experienced Senator who will just do the same wrong things we have been doing for the past 30+ years.
3. I don't want a "washington outsider" because we need someone who can make the deal



I wonder if that means that I think that a lobbyist might make a good POTUS? Lobbyists are certainly experienced in making deals with congress.

I tend to cut all presidents a lot of slack solely on the fact that they are the ones in the hot seat and frankly, the rest of us are clueless about what the president has to deal with on a daily basis.

But when it comes to "making the deal", President Obama has not been very successful. POTUS is not an entry level job.

So how do I find a candidate who has experience but does not have experience?

A tough nut to crack,

[Gerald]

[geetrue]

I see that Mr Gingrich gets his own thread now that Cain has gone lame

Remember the major of New York Rudy was riding the big wave of popularity too
and then lost all of his air when he got sick on a flight back to NY and
had to have an emergency landing.

All hopes gone after that

Mr Gingrich has about 30 more days to ride his wave ...

Romney lost last year in Iowa after spending millions of his own money

He owns land in New Hampshire and is way ahead there

Intresting race, but predictiable based on past facts

[soopaman2]

Newt is of the old guard republicans. Which adds to his appeal.

This extremist branch has really ruined the Republican chances. Newt has somewhat kept his distance from the loonies.

You can be as liberal or as conservative as you want, but if you do not cater to "the middle of the roaders" like me, then your chances are dismal.

Newt does that. I am not happy with his Fannie affiliations, but I will see how this pans out over time.

After all, I did like cain initially too. Until he started having to explain his platform. Then I saw he was a male Palin. Empty shell in it for the money.

[Gerald]

Newt Gingrich, the Republican presidential candidate with a penchant for luxury jets and Tiffany & Co. jewelry, also appears to demand top-notch accommodations when he travels for a speech.The Smoking Gun Web site, which specializes in unearthing revealing documents, has posted a copy of a speaking gig contract apparently signed by Gingrich for an appearance at Missouri Western State University in October 2010.The contract called for payment of “first class expenses,” including the hotel of Gingrich’s choice, and “first class airfare.” A Gingrich aide gets a smaller hotel room ”located nearby the suite, but not attached.” A contract addendum also notes that “Mrs. Gingrich” may sometimes travel with her husband and “will be needed to be seated beside Mr. Gingrich at all functions.”Perhaps most curious was language requiring a “non-smoking one-bedroom suite (preferably with two bathrooms).” The Smoking Gun compared Gingrich’s “loo requirement” with “Mary J. Blige’s toilet seat proviso,” in which the singer required “a private toilet (with new toilet seat)” as part of her standard performance contract.The Gingrich contract suggests that the former House speaker received $50,000 for the convocation event in Missouri, which is $10,000 shy of the amount that he has said he usually commands for speeches. “I was charging $60,000 a speech, and the number of speeches was going up, not down,” Gingrich said recently.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politi...y.html?hpid=z3


Note: Published: December 7

[Gerald]

[Sailor Steve]

So everyone has forgotten that twelve years ago Gingrich fell from grace, partly from sanctions over "unethical behavior" and partly for the same thing that just brought down Herman Cain? Not somebody I'd vote for.

[Gerald]

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/09/us...1&ref=politics


Note: Update Record,Published: December 8, 2011