Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(CBS News)   Newt Gingrich: Now that I lost Florida, shouldn't we change the rules?   ( cbsnews.com) divider line
    More: Asinine, Florida GOP, Newt Gingrich, Republican Party of Florida, national convention, Super Bowl XLVI, RNC, executive board  
•       •       •

6649 clicks; posted to Politics » on 03 Feb 2012 at 4:20 AM (5 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



354 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | » | Newest | Show all

 
2012-02-03 08:38:53 AM  
can we get a tv interview with the bullies/heroes that brutalized this putz as a lad?

/prolly his dad
 
2012-02-03 08:40:50 AM  

Derwood: Not to defend Newt, but this kind of crap wouldn't happen if there was one set of rules for primaries that all the states followed. Having every state run with a different set of procedures, whether it be proportional vs. winner-take-all delegates, or primaries vs. caucuses (etc.) is antiquated and unnecessary.


You have a problem with the 10 Amendment?
 
2012-02-03 08:43:23 AM  
Anything that helps Newt helps America
 
2012-02-03 08:44:08 AM  

Deneb81: I'll give this to Newt - he's a realist in the sense that he knows that rules and promises only apply to him if there's someone strong enough to enforce them.

He has no interest in following rules or laws for their own sake. Which, I'm sure, is exactly what a lot of R voters want. Someone who will get things done, rules and long term consequences be damned - we'll renegotiate them when someone has the gall to try and enforce them...


Sounds like a common dictatorship is what the R's want... Pure American.
 
2012-02-03 08:46:40 AM  

Deneb81: I'll give this to Newt - he's a realist in the sense that he knows that rules and promises only apply to him if there's someone strong enough to enforce them.

He has no interest in following rules or laws for their own sake. Which, I'm sure, is exactly what a lot of R voters want. Someone who will get things done, rules and long term consequences be damned - we'll renegotiate them when someone has the gall to try and enforce them...


You just solidified what my problem was with the Bush administration was that I didn't have words for. Thank you.
 
2012-02-03 08:46:58 AM  

Jake Havechek: Derwood: Not to defend Newt, but this kind of crap wouldn't happen if there was one set of rules for primaries that all the states followed. Having every state run with a different set of procedures, whether it be proportional vs. winner-take-all delegates, or primaries vs. caucuses (etc.) is antiquated and unnecessary.

You have a problem with the 10 Amendment?


I think states can hold state elections any way they see fit.

But in an election process for a FEDERAL office, I think the FEDERAL government should make a set of standardized procedures.
 
2012-02-03 08:48:47 AM  

Shaggy_C: If the RNC had any balls at all, they would have banished Florida's delegates from the convention entirely for moving up their date. With the amount of money spent there, I can guarantee that other states are going to follow suit next year.


They gave Florida a 50% penalty just like they did in 2008. Look how much good it did.

There was and is a 0% chance that Florida will have all of its delegates revoked, and a sizable damn chance that they get back the 50% they've lost at present. Why? The convention is in Tampa for fark's sake!
 
2012-02-03 08:48:49 AM  
Of course, he just wants to change the rules because he lost, we all know that. But generally speaking, a "winner take all" proposition is dumb, both in primaries and in our Electoral College.
 
2012-02-03 08:49:40 AM  

Derwood: Not to defend Newt, but this kind of crap wouldn't happen if there was one set of rules for primaries that all the states followed. Having every state run with a different set of procedures, whether it be proportional vs. winner-take-all delegates, or primaries vs. caucuses (etc.) is antiquated and unnecessary.


It's a wacky mess because none of this is in the constitution. Parties used to pick candidates, but for some reason they decided to democratize the process -- which is like adding a fifth wheel to a rowboat.

We should ditch the whole thing and just go to proportional representation for the house and senate and then setup some kind of preferential voting for the President in a single election.
 
2012-02-03 08:49:45 AM  
I thought changing the rules was his entire platform.
 
2012-02-03 08:52:52 AM  
The last thing I heard this dumb coming out of Florida was a candidate trying to change the state's recount rules during an election.

/You lost, get over it!
 
2012-02-03 08:54:04 AM  

rynthetyn: And if he'd won Florida, the rules would be great and he'd say the system worked. Dude thinks he's above the law.


a1.twimg.com

+

upload.wikimedia.org

someone make my photoshop dream come true
 
2012-02-03 08:54:19 AM  

Derwood: But in an election process for a FEDERAL office, I think the FEDERAL government should make a set of standardized procedures.


See, no, it's not. It's an election process for a private entity -- the Republcian Party And if you can believe it, Democrats have totality different set of rules for their primary. Meanwhile, states, like to fark with the process for whatever reasons they have as well.
 
2012-02-03 08:57:05 AM  

Derwood: Jake Havechek: Derwood: Not to defend Newt, but this kind of crap wouldn't happen if there was one set of rules for primaries that all the states followed. Having every state run with a different set of procedures, whether it be proportional vs. winner-take-all delegates, or primaries vs. caucuses (etc.) is antiquated and unnecessary.

You have a problem with the 10 Amendment?

I think states can hold state elections any way they see fit.

But in an election process for a FEDERAL office, I think the FEDERAL government should make a set of standardized procedures.


This is not an election for a federal office. This is an election for a party's nomination to a federal office.
 
2012-02-03 08:58:31 AM  
He operates without shame, it's like his ability to feel shame does not exist, he can never be ashamed of his actions regardless of how either idiotic or pathetic they are... Pretty good trait for a porn star not so much for some dude running for prezy.
 
2012-02-03 08:59:13 AM  

RminusQ: They gave Florida a 50% penalty just like they did in 2008. Look how much good it did.


The problem is that even at 50%, Florida is huge when compared to NH, SC, and Iowa. You would really have to hit them hard to disincentivize them from moving up their primary; even 25% would make them equals with Iowa and NH. Give them 10% of their delegates and watch the candidates disappear.
 
2012-02-03 09:02:28 AM  

muck4doo: Why won't this douche bag go away?


Cause this is the douche bag country filled with people that identify with him which means even if he did go away there are a million more to take his place.
 
2012-02-03 09:03:08 AM  
Newt, stop acting like a Democrat.
 
2012-02-03 09:03:42 AM  

kungfu jesus with a side of lime: [upload.wikimedia.org image 199x300]

someone make my photoshop dream come true


I'm still waiting for THIS:

cache.wists.com

/ I has no skilz
 
2012-02-03 09:04:02 AM  
3 weak ass comments about Al Gore?

You guys are slipping.....
 
2012-02-03 09:04:53 AM  

ib_thinkin: I love this guy! That's hilarious. It must suck to be a Republican these days.


There really is no adequate Facepalm to describe how I feel about the GOP options this season.

//I will be voting for Fartbongo, he is the best Republican option out there.
 
2012-02-03 09:06:36 AM  
One set of rules, on day of primaries.

None of this "Iowa and New Hampshire are more important than everyone else" bullshiat.

Super Tuesday should be the primary for all 50 states.
 
2012-02-03 09:07:32 AM  
"It is a shame when the loser of a contest agrees to the rules before, then cries foul after losing."

When Republicans start acting like Democrats we all lose.
 
2012-02-03 09:07:39 AM  

Derwood: But in an election process for a FEDERAL office, I think the FEDERAL government should make a set of standardized procedures.


This. I am all for states' rights, but this skews the balance quite a bit. States of equal population and equal numbers of delegates need to award them in the same fashion. As it stands, Minnesota would proportionally award their 40 candidates. Let's pretend it's a 25-15 split for Romney and Newt. Florida just hands all 50 to Romney. So they split states that have an almost equal amount of delegates, but one candidate is now 75-15 instead of, say, 55-35. Doesn't make much sense to me, if I am getting this right.
 
2012-02-03 09:08:48 AM  

Derwood: Super Tuesday should be the primary for all 50 states.


So, essentially, you think that only powerful, monied candidates should bother running for President. If you don't have the cash to mount a national campaign, don't bother showing up!

Way to fight the plutocracy, brother.
 
2012-02-03 09:10:30 AM  
If Gingrich can convince North Koreans to speak English, they could get a flaming replacement for their recent loss of giant ego for the mere sum of just some millions.
 
2012-02-03 09:10:54 AM  
monoski

//I will be voting for Fartbongo, he is the best Republican option out there.


funnydb.net
 
2012-02-03 09:12:10 AM  

Shaggy_C: Derwood: Super Tuesday should be the primary for all 50 states.

So, essentially, you think that only powerful, monied candidates should bother running for President. If you don't have the cash to mount a national campaign, don't bother showing up!

Way to fight the plutocracy, brother.


I think you spend as many months as necessary to campaign across the country, then all the "voting" happens on one day.

Do you think the voters in, say, Ohio or Colorado think it's fair that the race is all but decided by the time they get their say? Do you think the voters in Iowa and New Hampshire are more qualified to choose the early front runner than other states' voters?
 
2012-02-03 09:12:22 AM  

WinoRhino: Derwood: But in an election process for a FEDERAL office, I think the FEDERAL government should make a set of standardized procedures.

This. I am all for states' rights, but this skews the balance quite a bit. States of equal population and equal numbers of delegates need to award them in the same fashion. As it stands, Minnesota would proportionally award their 40 candidates. Let's pretend it's a 25-15 split for Romney and Newt. Florida just hands all 50 to Romney. So they split states that have an almost equal amount of delegates, but one candidate is now 75-15 instead of, say, 55-35. Doesn't make much sense to me, if I am getting this right.


Except a primary election isn't run by the state. It's run by the state party. Your tax dollars just pay for it.

/that doesn't make you feel better does it?
 
2012-02-03 09:14:34 AM  

Shaggy_C: Derwood: Super Tuesday should be the primary for all 50 states.

So, essentially, you think that only powerful, monied candidates should bother running for President. If you don't have the cash to mount a national campaign, don't bother showing up!

Way to fight the plutocracy, brother.


Oh, and this is EXACTLY how it works now, so how is my system any worse? When was the last time a middle class person got anywhere in a national election?
 
2012-02-03 09:17:15 AM  

Derwood: I think you spend as many months as necessary to campaign across the country, then all the "voting" happens on one day.


...allowing only the Romneys and Perrys of the world a chance to participate. The reason we have the "small states" first is because it allows small-time candidates without corporate backing from Wall Street a chance. Just look at Newt and Santorum - the only reason they're even in the race at this point is because they were able to dedicate what little money they had to campaigning in Iowa, New Hampshire, and South Carolina. That gave them prominence and therefore more donations which allows them to press on. In your version, there's no reason for anyone who isn't rich or financed by huge corporate interests to even play the game, as there's no way they can effectively mount a national campaign right from the start. Basically, rather than a cutoff of popular support to be on the ballot, you're making the cutoff millionaire status. In no way would that be a good thing for a country where the rich already have disproportionate control of almost every aspect of our institutions.
 
2012-02-03 09:18:53 AM  
Buh-bye Toad. Time to crawl back under your rock.
 
2012-02-03 09:19:37 AM  

Shaggy_C: Derwood: I think you spend as many months as necessary to campaign across the country, then all the "voting" happens on one day.

...allowing only the Romneys and Perrys of the world a chance to participate. The reason we have the "small states" first is because it allows small-time candidates without corporate backing from Wall Street a chance. Just look at Newt and Santorum - the only reason they're even in the race at this point is because they were able to dedicate what little money they had to campaigning in Iowa, New Hampshire, and South Carolina. That gave them prominence and therefore more donations which allows them to press on. In your version, there's no reason for anyone who isn't rich or financed by huge corporate interests to even play the game, as there's no way they can effectively mount a national campaign right from the start. Basically, rather than a cutoff of popular support to be on the ballot, you're making the cutoff millionaire status. In no way would that be a good thing for a country where the rich already have disproportionate control of almost every aspect of our institutions.


Nothing some wholesale campaign finance reform couldn't fix. If you want to level the playing field, go all the way; have a set amount of public funds set aside for each candidate and all it a day. The rich already always win.
 
2012-02-03 09:20:14 AM  
Time Traveler From The Year 1998 Warns Nation Not To Elect Newt Gingrich

Saying he came bearing an important message from the past, a stranger from the year 1998 appeared on the Capitol steps Thursday and urged voters not to elect Newt Gingrich president in 2012. "In the late 20th century, Newt Gingrich is a complete disgrace!" said the time-traveling man, warning Americans that 14 years in the not-so-distant past, Gingrich becomes the only speaker in the history of the House of Representatives to be found guilty on ethics charges, and is later forced to resign."
 
2012-02-03 09:21:23 AM  
So, let's see. Three posters have now compared Newt to Al Gore, claiming that Al wanted to change recount rules after an election.

Of course, the first move to "change the rules" after the 2000 Florida election was when the Bush team sent in lawyers to try to block manual recounts of the votes, as triggered by the state's criteria for close election results.

So, you know, once again, it just goes to show how much of GOP "known history" is simple BS.
 
2012-02-03 09:23:00 AM  

historycat: Except a primary election isn't run by the state. It's run by the state party. Your tax dollars just pay for it.

/that doesn't make you feel better does it?


Ah! Excellent point. Well, I guess the party can do whatever it damn well pleases then. I will shift my anger (once again) to political parties which are ruining have ruined the country.
 
2012-02-03 09:24:30 AM  

karnal: "It is a shame when the loser of a contest agrees to the rules before, then cries foul after losing."

When Republicans start acting like Democrats we all lose.


I realize you're trolling but I'd love your rationalization. I need a good chuckle.
 
2012-02-03 09:24:40 AM  

Derwood: Nothing some wholesale campaign finance reform couldn't fix. If you want to level the playing field, go all the way; have a set amount of public funds set aside for each candidate and all it a day. The rich already always win.


Well, yes, that is the obvious solution, but an incredibly unrealistic one. In any case, you're putting the horse before the cart if you turn primaries into a "winner take all" national election while still having the monied interests controlling media access.
 
2012-02-03 09:26:13 AM  
Derwood

Shaggy_C: Derwood: Super Tuesday should be the primary for all 50 states.

So, essentially, you think that only powerful, monied candidates should bother running for President. If you don't have the cash to mount a national campaign, don't bother showing up!

Way to fight the plutocracy, brother.

Oh, and this is EXACTLY how it works now, so how is my system any worse? When was the last time a middle class person got anywhere in a national election?


Guten morgen. I had a Ranshofen, middle-class childhood with a public school education - and look where a national election got me, Dummkopf!
upload.wikimedia.org
Who am I?
 
2012-02-03 09:26:37 AM  
I don't see what hte problem is, he is just asking for an open delegation. I mean, his delegates are good with it, why wouldn't Romney's? Think of all the stress it would take his shoulders, being able to seek whatever delegate he needs at the time to allievate the stress due to his great love for the GOP.

Poor Newt, he is just so misunderstood.
 
2012-02-03 09:28:35 AM  
Well, he is a man of big ideas.
 
2012-02-03 09:29:34 AM  
Umeraken Ideut

karnal: "It is a shame when the loser of a contest agrees to the rules before, then cries foul after losing."

When Republicans start acting like Democrats we all lose.

I realize you're trolling but I'd love your rationalization. I need a good chuckle.



For 40 bucks and a box of chocolates, I would let you love it.
 
2012-02-03 09:32:09 AM  
profile.ak.fbcdn.net
 
2012-02-03 09:33:28 AM  

Derwood: Shaggy_C: Derwood: I think you spend as many months as necessary to campaign across the country, then all the "voting" happens on one day.

...allowing only the Romneys and Perrys of the world a chance to participate. The reason we have the "small states" first is because it allows small-time candidates without corporate backing from Wall Street a chance. Just look at Newt and Santorum - the only reason they're even in the race at this point is because they were able to dedicate what little money they had to campaigning in Iowa, New Hampshire, and South Carolina. That gave them prominence and therefore more donations which allows them to press on. In your version, there's no reason for anyone who isn't rich or financed by huge corporate interests to even play the game, as there's no way they can effectively mount a national campaign right from the start. Basically, rather than a cutoff of popular support to be on the ballot, you're making the cutoff millionaire status. In no way would that be a good thing for a country where the rich already have disproportionate control of almost every aspect of our institutions.

Nothing some wholesale campaign finance reform couldn't fix. If you want to level the playing field, go all the way; have a set amount of public funds set aside for each candidate and all it a day. The rich already always win.


All you need to do in order to accomplish that is amend the Constitution to remove the first amendment protections from political speech. That shouldn't be difficult at all.
 
2012-02-03 09:34:44 AM  

Umeraken Ideut: karnal: "It is a shame when the loser of a contest agrees to the rules before, then cries foul after losing."

When Republicans start acting like Democrats we all lose.

I realize you're trolling but I'd love your rationalization. I need a good chuckle.


Well, when Obama moves to the center, it makes trolling that much harder to do.
 
2012-02-03 09:36:42 AM  

Lost Thought 00: All you need to do in order to accomplish that is amend the Constitution to remove the first amendment protections from political speech. That shouldn't be difficult at all.


Just amend it make clear money is not speech. You'd think it would be obvious with the commerce clause, but apparently it ain't.
 
2012-02-03 09:37:19 AM  

Toshiro Mifune's Letter Opener: I can't imagine playing a game of Monopoly against Newt, let alone having to run against him in a political contest. Yeesh.


I certainly would NOT let him be banker. I'd also make him play as the iron.
 
2012-02-03 09:38:33 AM  

regindyn: [profile.ak.fbcdn.net image 200x219]


img9.imageshack.us
 
2012-02-03 09:38:33 AM  

Lost Thought 00: All you need to do in order to accomplish that is amend the Constitution to remove the first amendment protections from political speech. That shouldn't be difficult at all.


Only if you agree with the Supreme Court that money = speech. Which is asinine.

But in a world were corporations = people, I guess their Constitutional rights will always come first.
 
2012-02-03 09:40:15 AM  

Derwood: Not to defend Newt, but this kind of crap wouldn't happen if there was one set of rules for primaries that all the states followed. Having every state run with a different set of procedures, whether it be proportional vs. winner-take-all delegates, or primaries vs. caucuses (etc.) is antiquated and unnecessary.


There's also a problem with the early states having a greater impact than later states. By now, Huntsman, Cain, Pawlenty, Bachmann, and Perry have all dropped out - with results from only 4 states. Citizens of Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina, and Florida have disproportionally powerful votes. By the time the citizens of Utah get a chance, they'll probably only have one candidate to vote for. We need to condense primary voting to only a few days with multiple states each day. Randomly setting the order of would be nice too so that the presidency doesn't keep getting directed by how much candidates can suck up to Iowans.
 
Displayed 50 of 354 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | » | Newest | Show all


View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking

On Twitter





Top Commented
Javascript is required to view headlines in widget.
  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report