« Rich women, charity, and fashion | Main | The Democratic side of 2008 »

January 26, 2007

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8341bf6ae53ef00d83512b3e269e2

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Half Sigma supports Newt Gingrich for President:

Comments

Too bad Chris Farley's dead, he did a good Gingrich.

I don't think he is going to run, and if he ran, he wouldn't win. Newt lacks star power. He will basically be trying to run off the fumes of his 1994 "Contract with America".

I don't think he's electable. I respect him for being, I believe, genuine and thoughtful, although I disagree with much of what he stands for. He'd surely be a vast improvement over Bush, who I not only disagree with on values questions, but combines total incompetence with hubris. The people don't want bookish, twice-divorced intellectuals for president, though. He'd also have trouble with independents.

(It would take a real moron or downright evil person winning the Dem nomination to get me to vote Republican though, so my thoughts about him are probably irrelevant.)

I love Newt like any man should love another man: from a distance.

Seriously, when Newt starts talking, I get entracified. I'd watch CSPAN any time he's on.

But I support Giulliani. You're absolutely wrong, Giulliani is a fiscal conservative. He always knew that the way out of NYC's problems was never to just try and tax your way out of them.

Now, maybe you think he could have done more, like get rid of that stupid income tax. I'll grant you that. But he didn't raise taxes, and he did a lot of spending cuts. That's my definition of a fiscal conservative.

Myself, I'm never going to vote for somebody who hasn't been in an executive capacity of some sort. Whether it be mayor of governor, that's the training ground for President.

If our choices are Romney, Newt, Rudy, and McCain, that's really not a bad bunch of guys. I could support any of them against the Wicked Witch of the East.

If you really think that Newt Gingrich would ever be elected President of the United State, you really should put down the crack pipe and step away from the computer.

There is no way that he can win and there is no way that he is the best candidate for the job.

Not that I came up with this myself, but the Mormon is the only guy with one wife. Ironic?

What about Ron Paul or Tom Tancredo? Are they any good?

"What about Ron Paul or Tom Tancredo? Are they any good?"

Why waste internet bandwidth on people who have no chance of winning?

"What about Ron Paul or Tom Tancredo? Are they any good?"

They might run as protest candidates, but they lack any mainstream support. In fact, Tancredo is hated by the media and the current administration, so I would guess his chances are slim to none.

I support Ron Paul. Even though he's a gold nut :-(. At least he doesn't share the pro-immigration views of the Libertarian party.
Giuliani is an authoritarian by instinct. I hope he doesn't get anywhere near the presidency; civil liberties have taken enough of a beating already. He deserves some credit for cleaning up New York, but he had the good fortune to have demographics working for him. Luckily the Christian right will make sure he remains an also-ran. McCain is very similar, but more electable and therefore more dangerous.
Newt Gingrich is smarter than most congresspeople, but doesn't seem to be principled enough to resist the corrupting effects of power (look at his followthrough, or lack thereof, on the Contract With America).

Why waste internet bandwidth on people who have no chance of winning?

Hah, you just have it in for the libertarians. Newt's chances of winning are within epsilon the same as Ron Paul's, which is to say, zero.

David Alexander is voting for Segolene Royal. :-P

David Alexander is also voting for Stéphane Dion. :-P

Let's not fall into the trap set for us by the liberal media.

These politicians are not for or against "immigration". They are not taking a stand against legal immigrants.

What they are choosing to stand on is whether the government should should enforce the immigration laws created by the people's representatives - or if the government should simply do whatever the elites in power want, without regard for the law.

There is excellent chance that Democrats will win back the white house in 2008. For a Republican candidate to win next year, he (or she) must be able to get the support of the middle of the road voters. This probably means a clear promise to withdraw of US troops from Iraq.

Newt might be a real person, but the public don't like him. They prefer someone like Obama. If Newt runs, he will be another Bob Dole (and Dole is a real American hero with medals).

HS would be better off writing about Democratic forerunners and trying to find some one he can vote for.

No Republican candidate can win in 2008. The hole is too deep.

Because of that, it makes the most sense to nominate an ideologue like Gingrich, Paul or Tancredo who will inspire future Republicans in a future election where the GOP has an actual chance.

I suspect if you hooked Gingrich up to a lie detector he would agree with the above. Realistically he knows he might be a Goldwater but he will never be a Reagan.

I think Brownback has a good chance. People don't know him so he won't be associated as much with the Bush disaster, and the whole social-conservative-but-economically-liberal thing would go over really well with the electorate. You already established that smart people tend to be more libertarian, so it's natural that the electorate would be anti-libertarian. ;)

Seriously, the country as a whole is economically liberal and socially conservative--look at how excited people were about reforming Social Security, but they still expect their presidents to go to church.

Chris,

If you look at demographic trends in the United States, there is no way that the Republicans can continue to exist as a viable political party without becoming much more liberals.

Since blacks vote 90% for Democrats,Hispanics vote 70% and Asian vote 65% for Democrats, the Republicans are basicaly left trying to get the highest percentage of white votes that it can.

I do not see how the Republicans can get a higher percentage of white votes than it gets now.

By around the year 2020, most than 50% of the voters in the U.S. will probably automatic votes for the Democrats.

The future on the U.S. looks more like Mass, NJ, Maryland, or DC.

Why aren't you voting for Brownback on the Electronic markets to
a) hedge against your "bad president" risk
and
b) try to take advantage of your supposedly superior knowledge of the race

I don't know how. It sounds like fun! Though of course to make any real money I'd have to wager a bit more than I feel comfy doing. Anyone know how?

BTW, I made $20 betting on Bush to win in 2004.

BTW, I made $20 betting on Bush to win in 2004.

Yeah, my husband made a few hundred bucks doing that. It was on the Internet, some site in Scotland. Quasi-legal, or so he told me.

If you look at demographic trends in the United States, there is no way that the Republicans can continue to exist as a viable political party without becoming much more liberals.

I remember I said a few days in a comment, "We are all Liberals now"...

Since blacks vote 90% for Democrats,Hispanics vote 70% and Asian vote
65% for Democrats, the Republicans are basically left trying to get the highest percentage of white votes that it can.

I wouldn't give that much credence, since voter affiliation and voter turnout are two separate things, and nearly 3/5ths of the black population lives in States where felons cannot vote. Blacks

As for our friend Barack Obama, when people start figuring out what he stands for, I think his support will wane. I'm waiting until primary season begins to see people's true colours...

Even as a Democrat, I'll put $20 on the Republicans winning. The Republicans have fucked up with the war, but the American people have short-term memory, and the DNC can easily fuck up things.

Half Sigma:
The guy's name is Mitt Romney. Not Mitch Romney. He pays lip service to stopping illegal immigration, but wants more legal immigration. Here:
http://www.mittromney.com/Issue-Watch/Immigration

Newt Gingrich also has the same position: no illegal immigration, but more legal immigration. Here:
http://www.ontheissues.org/2008/Newt_Gingrich_Immigration.htm

None of the "major" candidates (i.e. Giuliani, Romney, Brownback, Huckabee, Gingrich, or McCain) want to lower actual immigration numbers. It is almost as if to get major financial support a candidate has to take a position for more immigration.

It shouldn't surprise anyone that neither party really wants real immigration reform. These are smart, rational people catering to their own best interest (while completely ignoring what is good for the country)

The media is saying that this is going to be the first billion dollar presidential election. If a candidate wants to be player, he (or she) simply can't afford to alienate business interests that contribute millions of dollars to both parties to make sure things stay the same.

The only way immigration reform can happen is when it is no longer profitable to bring in workers from abroad or the general population stop believing that the immigrants are simply doing jobs that no American would want to do. It just amazing that the public have not figured out that the best way to force a wage hike across the board is to reduce the number of available worker to the employers.

I was hoping that Tancredo would get enough press and popular support to get a candidate adopt a position closer to his own on immigration. Were this to happen, it would be Mitt moving sate the restrictionist impulse (though I'd be skeptical of the whether the given candidate will remain loyal to his proposed immigration policy).

The media works very hard to keep the public thinking of immigration in terms of a racist issue rather than an economic issue. The fact that a lot of immigration-restrictionists are, in fact, racists doesn't help matters. It's easy to paint this as a matter of the South keeping the brown people out and keep middle Americans who don't want to be racist from realizing a labor shortage would drive their own wages up.

There's also the whole elites-versus-masses thing across both parties that keeps immigration in: the Democratic elites want votes, the Republican elites want cheap labor, and they keep troublesome elements in their own party under control. I would actually see the ascendance of populist Democrats as a good thing, since they have more mainstream appeal than Pat Buchanan, who keeps saying nice things about Hitler.

You'd really need a Ross Perot who doesn't bug out at the end.

Besides, immigration is not the most important issue for a lot of people; a lot of people want out of the war first, want to cut down global warming or abortions, etc.

The idea that more hispanics ensures a more liberal future is fairly meaningless. Half Sigma has posted here about how political views are primarily emotional reactions.

In any given election, most voters merely vote against someone, not for anyone or anything. If they feel good about the economy and their place in the world more will support the incumbent. If they don't, they vote for the challenger.

Individual politicans may become more left or right wing as they make policies, but this has very little to do with whether they are embraced at the polls.

The last election proves this - the GOP only lost basically due to forces of nature and corruption - Katrina, Mark Foley's homosexuality and Tom Delay's corruption. They voted against GOP more due to NK's successful nuclear test than the supposedly failed war in Iraq (exit polls showed Iraq the fourth or in some cases fifth most important issue to voters).

The economy was fine, the nation was secure, GOP lost because people felt bad about Katrina and did not trust GOP due to scandals. Pure emotionalism.

I suspect the same emotionalism will hold true in 2008. Incumbent GOP will be smeared with Iraq war, continued North Korea and Iranian nuclear program, there may be more scandals in the wings, and likely we will see some sort of economic downturn or recession.

I feel it's extrememly likely that GOP loses, which is why they should run an ideologically pure candidate like Paul or Gingrich. In a future election when the winds are blowing a different way, GOP can elect some people via emotionalism who will enact logical policies once they are in office.

Policies matter in leadership, but politics mean nothing in elections.

There's something a little creepy about reading the comments above when you're the child of "brown" immigrants...

"There's something a little creepy about reading the comments above when you're the child of "brown" immigrants..."

Does every post have to be politically correct? If your liberal sensibilities get offended reading these comments, then stop reading the blog.

Political correctness is the reason that nothing is done about immigration. Every one wants to paint the immigration restrictionists as nazis. Even if a few immigration restrictionists are in fact racists, that doesn't mean that all immigration restrictionists are.

Does every post have to be politically correct? If your liberal sensibilities get offended reading these comments, then stop reading the blog.

It's one thing when people say that they're against illegal immigration because it's unfair to the legal immigrants. It's another when people say that you the legal immigrant are the problem.

As for not reading the blog, there are many days where I wonder why I still read and post here. It can be very depressing sometimes.

"It's one thing when people say that they're against illegal immigration because it's unfair to the legal immigrants. It's another when people say that you the legal immigrant are the problem."

Too many legal immigrants are comming in (one million legal immigrants per year). We don't even screen them for skills like some countries do (ie, Canada). This means we end up with a lot of deadbeats who stay in their ethnic enclaves and don't contribute to the economy.

The only way forward now is to cut down on legal and illegal immigration (around 40% of illegal immigrants came in legally and then overstayed their visa). This country is diverse enough as it is. More diversity will simply lead to more ethnic strife.

If you cared about this country, and not just your ethnic group, you would support cutting down on immigration.

I find it depressing too, DA, and they don't even cast aspersions on my ethnic group. Well, they do, but not to the same degree. You sound pretty depressed in general. I'm bitter myself.

I just happen to think that restricting immigration would create a labor shortage and drive wages up, not to mention avoiding the creation of assimilation-resistant enclaves. I'm not saying we need to keep people like *you* out, if that makes you feel any better. Which it may not.

I would like the US to become a real nation, instead of a vast imperial presence masquerading as a nation. Then it might be recognized that the US -as a authentic country-has a right to determine who will become part of its polity as a simple matter of national self-determination and national self-interest.

What the heck is the guy talking about? Not a real nation? Fake nations state don't stir up as much envy and hostility abroad.

The problem with putting an ideological candidates for 2008 is that GOP has lost its way. What exactly does it mean to be Republican these days? The neocons currently in power are not that much different than the hard left. They don't believe in freedom either.

I think Newt is running. I got a phone call over the weekend where they (a live person) asked if I would be willing to listen to a pre-recorded message from Newt. I said yes, and his recording came on the line. He had some decent things to say, along with some questionable points thrown in. But his overall message was that conservatives lost the last election because they had lost touch with what got them there back in 1994.

Of course, then I got handed off to someone who wanted my money. I told them to pack sand, but I doubt that he is really raising this money just for GO-PAC alone.

I think he'll be in the race.

"What the heck is the guy talking about? Not a real nation? Fake nations state don't stir up as much envy and hostility abroad"

Normal nations(even wealthy ones like Switzerland) don't stir up much "envy and hostility". The problem is that the US is perceived by many (and to a extent this is true) as an EMPIRE. This is because of the worldwide impact of the US economy, the US military, and our world-encompassing Industrial Pop Culture. This shouldn't be too hard to figure out.

i guess not too much can be done about the economic and "cultural" impact of the American Empire, but the US could pull out militarily of the ME and pull out the remaining troops from Korea, Japan and Europe.

For those who think that the US never had a specific ethnic/cultural character read ALbion's Seed.

"What the heck is the guy talking about? Not a real nation? Fake nations state don't stir up as much envy and hostility abroad"

Come to think of it, the only two countries that seem to "stir up...much envy and hostility abroad" are the US and Israel- two nations with, of course, a singularly close relationship

The only candidate who could defeat the Dem candidate would be Lou Dobbs running as an independent. He wouldn't be able to win the votes of the Smoot-Hawley obsessives, but they don't count for much electorally.

Giuliani would have a good chance, but how could someone so socially liberal win the GOP nomination?

>>Come to think of it, the only two countries that seem to "stir up...much envy and hostility abroad" are the US and Israel

I guess it depends where you are. Say something positive about Japan in Shanghai, and see the reaction you get. Say something nice about Russians in Estonia, or Ukraine.

There's a lot of hate out there, in some cases for good reason (Russians, Japanese).

Giuliani is too socially liberal. If McCain supports another amnesty bill with Ted Kennedy, he will, and should, have lots of trouble. Romney would be wise to be tough on illegal immigration, and socially conservative. With his intelligence, he may be the one social conservative who can win the nomination, and the presidency. As far as I know, no Democrat has come out against unrestricted illegal immigration. That is scary.

There's a lot of hate out there, in some cases for good reason (Russians, Japanese)

What's the good reason for hating the Japanese?

>>What's the good reason for hating the Japanese?

Their unwillingness to come clean with WW2 attrocities against the Chinese and Koreans. Especially if you are Chinese or Korean.

The comments to this entry are closed.