Newt explains

[okie52]

Gingrich Says Illegal Immigrants Should Leave


Candidate Leaves Door Open For Longtime Community Members


By Tom CohenCNN


POSTED: 12:07 pm EST December 18, 2011
UPDATED: 3:59 am EST December 19, 2011


WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Newt Gingrich insisted Sunday that some illegal immigrants who have become full community members should be able to stay in the country, but he added that his policy would require 7 million or more to go back to their home nations before having a chance to return.
Appearing on the CBS program "Face the Nation," the front-running Republican presidential hopeful repeated his call for some kind of citizen review board to assess whether illegal immigrants would be eligible to get a residency permit and stay in America.
Gingrich, a former House Speaker, said the American people would not tolerate the forced removal of someone who has lived in their community for 25 years, has children and grandchildren, and belongs to a local church. However, Gingrich said he expected about 1 million of the estimated 11 million illegal immigrants to qualify under the review board process to remain in the country, adding that they would have to be sponsored by an American family.
The rest would have to leave, Gingrich said.
"My guess is that 7 or 8 or 9 million would ultimately go home to get a guest or worker permit and return under the law," Gingrich said.
His immigration policy has come under attack from some rival candidates who call it a form of amnesty -- a virtual dirty word for the conservative tea party movement.

Copyright CNN 2011


Read more: http://www.wesh.com/politics/3002420...#ixzz1gzhL8dyU

The American people just won't stand for a 25 years illegal being removed...that 20 year guy, well, that's okay.

[SanJoaquinSooner]

who's your candidate, okie?

[okie52]

SanJoaqin-He11, I really don't know. I guess Romney but I won't be that upset if he doesn't get it.

It looks like it is down to Newt and Romney and I'd vote for either of them vs Obama.

How about you?

[OULenexaman]

I would take a dead fish over BHO.

[okie52]

BHO has had some real opportunities during his term to move forward on energy but he has been a huge failure in that area.

[okie52]

Of course Newt's 25 year guy is interesting since a 25 year guy would have arrived here just after the last amnesty (to end all amnesties).

[AlboSooner]

Things must be really bad when a charlatan like Newt G seems like a plausible candidate for president.

[badger]

I remember when Wisconsin went to a graduated driver's license... if you didn't turn 16 by a certain date, you had the dumbed-down license--- no more than one passenger under 18 in the car unless they were siblings, no driving at late hours, etc. etc. You should have heard the howling of those that had just missed the cutoff date... soooo unfair that they were off by just a month or two!

I imagine that the same thing happened a generation before in Wisconsin, when the drinking age was slowly raised to 21 in order to not get highway funds cutoff. If you turned 18 by a certain date, you'd still be able to drink (they raised the age to 19, then 20, then 21 to follow the cutoff date), but if you missed the cutoff date, you were underage.

My point in bringing this up is that a cutoff date is always seen as unfair, unequal and just an arbitrary date to set people that are otherwise seemingly equal apart from each other.

At the same time, it would probably require too much effort to take it case-by-case, so a cutoff date is probably easiest to enforce. That's what Wisconsin did with graduated driver's licenses and the drinking age.

[hawaii 5-0]

I wish Newt would explain how he couldn't get even 10,000 valid signatures to get on the primary ballot in Virginia.

And he lives there, for crissakes.

5-0

[badger]

I wish Newt would explain how he couldn't get even 10,000 valid signatures to get on the primary ballot in Virginia.

And he lives there, for crissakes.

5-0

I hope its like the Al Gore situation, where people could nag and naysay and be all like "If only you carried your home state, you would have won."

Gingrich's response?

"Voters deserve the right to vote for any top contender, especially leading candidates," Gingrich campaign director Michael Krull said in a statement. "We will work with the Republican Party of Virginia to pursue an aggressive write-in campaign to make sure that all the voters of Virginia are able to vote for the candidate of their choice."

Riiiiight, a write-in campaign. Has anyone ever seen a successful write-in campaign, at any level?

Oh wait, there's more:

However, state law says this about primary write-in campaigns: "No write-in shall be permitted on ballots in primary elections."

"Virginia code prohibits write-ins in primaries. He can't do it," said Carl Tobias, a law professor at University of Richmond.

I must say that I am kind of surprised by the requirement to have at least 400 sigs from each area of the state in order to be on the ballot. To my knowledge, the requirement here in Oklahoma is either just a big number of sigs, or money. Guess what route most candidates took

Oh wait... there's even more:

“Newt and I agreed that the analogy is December 1941: We have experienced an unexpected setback, but we will re-group and re-focus with increased determination, commitment and positive action,” Campaign Director Michael Krull wrote on Gingrich’s official Facebook page on Saturday.

Offering what appeared to be an FDR-inspired rallying cry, Krull continued: “Throughout the next months there will be ups and downs; there will be successes and failures; there will be easy victories and difficult days -- but in the end, we will stand victorious.”

Oh my goodness... way to cost yourself the veteran vote. Continued...

The attack on Pearl Harbor, which killed more than 2,300 Americans and led to the United States entry into World War II, may not be very analogous to some.

For one, Pearl Harbor was a surprise attack. Gingrich has known for months about the Dec. 22 deadline to file. Secondly, Pearl Harbor was extremely deadly while failing to qualify in Virginia doesn’t quite carry the same consequence.

I'm pulling all of this stuff from the Fox News website btw. Those are the first returns for a google news search for "newt gingrich virginia."

I find it kind of odd that Gingrich lives in Virginia now... perhaps it was from his marital troubles that he left Georgia (the place he rep'd when he was Speaker of the House).

In any event... this is not the end of a campaign by any means. As you political board types may recall, most Democratic candidates chose to sit out the Meat Chicken primary back in 2008 because the national delegation asked them to as punishment for moving their primary too early in the calendar year without prior approval.

But... what an interesting turn of events.

[hawaii 5-0]

If memory serves the new Senator from Alaska won her seat via write-in ballots. Murkovsky or something like that.

Newt is quite an enigma. He needs a good advisor.

5-0

[badger]

If memory serves the new Senator from Alaska won her seat via write-in ballots. Murkovsky or something like that.

Newt is quite an enigma. He needs a good advisor.

5-0

Write.... er... RIGHT you are!

Link

That is pretty crazy... it probably helps that there's only 500k people in Alaska and a lot are ineligible to vote (being under 18) or don't vote (for whatever reason) so that such a campaign could be successful.

Back in the rural area I used to live in, the county sheriff could never last beyond one term, so the primary loser (because nobody ever ran as a Democrat in that district, something you probably experience in the reverse in Hawaii) would immediately fire up a write-in campaign... and lose by an even wider margin.

Some guy that made tons of political mistakes (suggesting that he could challenge longterm Gov. Tommy Thompson, suggesting that his ballot name read "Elvis" to remind voters that he looks like him or something) lost in his primary, despite being a fairly longterm incumbent and son of the state rep that previously held that seat (yes, politics breeds nepotism everywhere, not just in the Tulsa mayor's office). His solution? A write-in campaign. How would he get people to write his name in? Homemade yard signs (seriously, those signs looked like CRAP and they were all over some of our streets, uggggh). How else? By telling voters to use stickers provided by his campaign (that were huge and would no way fit in the write-in spot on the ballot) and then the kicker: Encourage the voters to leave the stickers behind in the ballot booths so that other voters would also use them.

Oh yes, a very huge ethics violation, and he fortunately lost (by a huge margin) so there was no challenge from the winner afterward. It just pretty much ensured that he'd never hold that office again, thank gawd.

[hawaii 5-0]

Somebody named LaFortune is T Town's mayor?

5-0

[badger]

Somebody named LaFortune is T Town's mayor?

5-0

Close --- it's Bartlett again.

[hawaii 5-0]

Close --- it's Bartlett again.

My second guess.

5-0

[badger]

Back on topic, I promise this isn't Republican angst or anything, since I have already said that I may even vote for Obama and no true Republican ever would, hehe, but here goes:

Never have I seen such an assembly of crappy candidates from top to bottom from one party where absolutely no candidate seems to have the charisma, or the credentials, or the military background, or the political allies, or anything worth anything in a political election or to serve in the Oval Office, than this bunch of Republicans.

Even in 2008, the top Democratic candidates at least had name recognition (Clinton) or charisma (Obama), even if they had minimal executive experience.

Perhaps this is the revisionist history in me thinking, but the earliest election I can remember was the 1988 one (I would have been one year old in 1984). George HW Bush had tons of foreign policy experience and was also the sitting vice president. Perfect. His primary opponent was the sitting governor of Massachusetts at the time (Dukakis) so he could be seen as a viable candidate also, even if he didn't win.

In 1992, you had an incumbent president versus a longtime governor of Arkansas. Fine. (even if the thought of Clinton chasing anything female creeps me out to this day).

In 1996, you had a longtime Senate leader in Bob Dole against a sitting president.

In 2000, you had someone with name recognition and governor of Texas (George W. Bush) against the sitting vice president (who also had a bit of nepotism on his side, like Bush, yes).

In 2004, you had W. against a prominent senator, and perhaps even a better candidate that unfortunately Dems couldn't get nominated after his early momentum, Howard Dean.

I would totally vote for John McCain again if he ran again... but he probably is getting too old for this presidential campaigning crap, heh. He was unquestionably a qualified candidate, a POW veteran and longtime Senate leader.

And now... 2012. Let's run them down, shall we?

Rick Perry, the corrupt governor of Texas that even his own alma mater Yell Leader school, Texas A&M, hates.

Newt Gingrich, the thrice married... I'm just going to stop there. I loved the idea of the Contract with America. Speaker of the House is a good prerequisite, but I can't get past that fact of being married three times, probably since I'm a girl. Ugggggggh

I am probably gonna end up voting for Mitt Romney, since I like what he did with the 2002 Olympics. You hear about those events and they're usually money pits that bleed the area/country dry for decades, but everything I've read indicates that the Olympics were actually a benefit to the Salt Lake City area and continue to be to this day, from continued mass transit options to not being buried in debt. I don't care that he's Mormon. Aside from the polygamous ones, they seem to be what you'd love to see in your fellow Christians: Hard working, devoted to family, educated, involved in the community and not overly judgmental of fellow Christians and non-Christians alike.

just my two cents. it is probably a stupid thing to get hung up over in, but I'm not voting for Newt.

[hawaii 5-0]

Chris Christy next term vs. The Other Clinton.

5-0

[badger]

Chris Christy next term vs. The Other Clinton.

5-0

Even my staunchly liberal Oregon relatives disliked The Other Clinton and probably won't vote for The Other Clinton. One said that she waited her entire life to vote for a woman for president but that The Other Clinton was the wrong one to vote for.

As for Christy, I'm not sure his health can take a presidential run, but I admire him for saying that he personally wasn't ready, rather than making up some random other BSish reason for not running. I like self-depreciation more than making up sh!t. It's refreshing.

[hawaii 5-0]

I think Mitt might ask Christy to run as VP. It's a lot of East Coast Republicanism but he's pretty well liked by most Conservatives.


OK, my last comment off topic.

5-0

[badger]

OK, let me lead us back on the topic of Newt.

Why the eff do I care about the fact that Newt has been married three times and because infidelity (which he admitted to) was usually the reason why his marriages didn't last? Shouldn't his extension political experience, including Speaker of the House (third in line for presidency behind veep, right?) and being one of the leaders of the Contract with America, something that I was actually all enthusiastic about for its party-uniting and voter-friendly ideas.