Althouse: "Donald Trump Mulls Third-Party Bid as He Enjoys GOP Kingmaker Role."

December 5, 2011

"Donald Trump Mulls Third-Party Bid as He Enjoys GOP Kingmaker Role."

According to the Wall Street Journal.

If that's his attitude, he should not be moderating a debate!

76 comments:

SGT Ted said...: And the debates run by liberal partisans posing as journalists didn't have ANY conflict of interest?; 12/5/11, 9:05 AM
bagoh20 said...: He would be asking a good question: What makes you a better candidate than me or anyone else? The primary is the place to ask that.; 12/5/11, 9:10 AM
Christopher in MA said...: I'm of two minds over this. I tend to agree with Ron Paul that letting the short-fingered vulgarian host a debate makes a mockery of the contest and of the office of president (though, frankly, seeing the coke-addled SCOAMF who squats there now basically cuts the legs out from under Paul's contention).

On the other hand, the Sarge has it right - every one of the enemedia fellators pretending to be honest brokers in the preceding GOP debates are there for one reason: to run interference for Little Black Jesus.

The whole "debate" kerfuffle is a short bus clown show now. Instead of asking "why should Trump be a moderator?" the better question ought to be "why is a known Democrat liar like Wolf Blitzer a moderator?"; 12/5/11, 9:13 AM
MadisonMan said...: It sounds like he is trying to gin up publicity. Is his TV show still on?; 12/5/11, 9:13 AM
mccullough said...: All of the candidates will come off better in comparison to Trump.; 12/5/11, 9:22 AM
bagoh20 said...: The real danger I see is that it will flop for whatever reason, and we will never again try anything new and just stick with Democrats asking all the questions. Does that seem right?; 12/5/11, 9:23 AM
Robert Cook said...: Trump is a chump, a phony publicity hound whose real estate "empire" is alleged to be really run by his brother.

Anyone who believes Trump has the slightest intentions of actually running for President (or capability of being President) ought to be warned that emails from rich Sudanese offering to share their wealth are purported to be, uh, not on the level.; 12/5/11, 9:32 AM
Mick said...: Neither party cares about rules, propriety, or decorum. After all they are both on the hook for treason, for allowing one born a British subject, and not a natural born Citizen, to ascend the Presidency. They welcome the 3rd party run of Trump, as it will make Obama (the Usurper) a shoe in (if he makes it to the election, which he won't), and the R party doesn't want to win anyway, as the current and strengthening economic depression takes hold. They surely don't want to preside over that!

No, Trump is an Obama stooge, no matter what he says. He is now trying to not only give cover for Obama (w/ the continuation of the BC Conspiracy), but also to Congress.; 12/5/11, 9:35 AM
gk1 said...: Why not Trump? If the republicans are dumb enough to let the MSM and MSNBC "moderate" their debates, whats one more agent provacature?; 12/5/11, 9:35 AM
CarterFliptMe said...: Without some high profile platform, people's interest in these debates is waning, if not altogether gone. Better to have Trump moderate than say, James Carville.; 12/5/11, 9:40 AM
edutcher said...: The "debate" will be an extended episode of "The Apprentice". I have to say this is one of the few areas where I think Ron Paul is right.

And I don't know he has much kingmaking juice. Miss Sarah probably has more.

PS A third party run would be an ego exercise that would go flat.; 12/5/11, 9:46 AM
richard mcenroe said...: These debates were all reality show crap from the gitgo. The GOP offering Trump a chance to host one, with Eason Jordan involved, is just the RNC rubbing its contempt in the base's face.; 12/5/11, 9:52 AM
John Althouse Cohen said...: It was already the case that he "shouldn't be moderating a debate" since he's unqualified. If he's actually going to run for president, he cannot ethically moderate a debate.; 12/5/11, 9:52 AM
richard mcenroe said...: Word is, if Trump hosts, the ladies of the View are next. The winner will be the candidate who gets a word in over all the screaming.; 12/5/11, 9:53 AM
traditionalguy said...: Trump is so attack oriented that he may assist the Obama Campaign's planned sympathy vote as the underdog ploy.; 12/5/11, 9:54 AM
machine said...: Didn't Faux News just have a debate? Are they and Huckabee the "liberal partisan, enemedia, MSM, etc....

This constant crying over media victimhood is a little ridiculous when Faux News provides the GOP with the largest media operation in the country...when the GOP needs to get a message out, every show on Faux hammers the Luntz message over and over and over until its considered to be true (when it usually isn't);

Quit blaming the "MSM" and blame the lame candidates...; 12/5/11, 9:54 AM
Scott M said...: Quit blaming the "MSM" and blame the lame candidates...

Is that like blaming the "messaging" in regards to the Stimulus, QE1, QE2, Obamacare, etc?; 12/5/11, 9:59 AM
Curious George said...: "John Althouse Cohen said...
It was already the case that he "shouldn't be moderating a debate" since he's unqualified. If he's actually going to run for president, he cannot ethically moderate a debate."

What exactly are those qualifications?

I wonder if you made the same "ethical" stink when Gwen Ifil moderated a debate between Obama and McCain?; 12/5/11, 10:03 AM
roesch/voltaire said...: I like this comment from a real conservative candidate: Huntsman, appearing on Fox News this morning, responded to Trump. “I’m not going to kiss his ring, and I’m not going to kiss any other part of his anatomy,” Huntsman said. “This is exactly what is wrong with politics. It’s show business over substance. … The presidency of the United States of America is more important than these silly game shows and reality shows.”; 12/5/11, 10:06 AM
edutcher said...: machine said...

This constant crying over media victimhood is a little ridiculous when Faux News provides the GOP with the largest media operation in the country...when the GOP needs to get a message out, every show on Faux hammers the Luntz message over and over and over until its considered to be true (when it usually isn't);

Gee, the automaton just described the Establishment Media's whole operation 24/7. When you have the Peacock hiring Chelsea Clinton and MSLSD running Meaghan McCain as paragons of objectivity, some people (a Hell of a lot, actually) think it might be nice to have someone reporting who's actually going to give you some facts.

God forbid, someone takes a point of view that doesn't toe the the Lefty line.

Quit blaming the "MSM" and blame the lame candidates...

The lamest candidate is running on the Demo side. Why else is he afraid to count the people who've been unemployed so long they've gone through their 99 weeks?

If the workforce were counted as large as it was in January '09, the U-3 would be 11%.; 12/5/11, 10:06 AM
rhhardin said...: Trump was a Hillary supporter in 08, so I'd say a false flag is probable.; 12/5/11, 10:13 AM
Chip Ahoy said...: Why would I take the advice of a commenter who cannot even type the simple word

Fox?

Is that so goddamn hard? But no, we get Faux Faux Faux three times instead. There's your bug. It's a big bug and it crawled right up your ass.; 12/5/11, 10:13 AM
bagoh20 said...: I have yet to have a political discussion with any liberal who didn't immediately bring up Fox. One network, just one, is too many dissident voices. It's true Fox has an anti-government bias right now, but I thought that was supposed to be the approach of journalism - in America at least. It certainly shouldn't be towing the government line.; 12/5/11, 10:24 AM
Christopher in MA said...: "I'm not going to kiss his ring and I'm not going to kiss any other part of his anatomy."

Considering Huntsman's only ever kissed Little Black Jesus' ass, I really don't give a shit as to his opinion of Trump. And he's about as 'conservative' as Carol Herman is 'eloquent.'

"If he's actually going to run for president, he cannot ethically moderate a debate."

Curious got to this before me, JAC, but perhaps you could point out to me your post or comment protesting that the fellatrix Gwen Ifill - with her book about the SCOAMF prepared to publish - should not have ethically moderated a debate. I'd be interested in reading it.; 12/5/11, 10:26 AM
Brian Brown said...: machine said...

This constant crying over media victimhood is a little ridiculous when Faux News provides the GOP with the largest media operation in the country

As opposed to CBS (Mary Mapes among others) ABC (the current WH press secretary used to work there), NBC (Russert & Matthews worked for Congressional Democrats), the NYT, Washington Post, LA Times, et. al providing Democrats the largest media operation in the history of the universe.

Your point would be ____?; 12/5/11, 10:30 AM
Big Mike said...: If that's his attitude, he should not be moderating a debate!

No, he shouldn't. But there's a lot of things he shouldn't do and yet he does, so what's new?; 12/5/11, 10:45 AM
SGT Ted said...: The pro Obama bias of the debates run by The MBM is quite obvious. It isn't whining to point it out. It is also obvious that the pro Obama moderators were only interested in asking questions from a leftwing perspective in order to generate soundbites for later use as propaganda for the DNC 2012 campaigns.

It is whining when you bitch about one debate not run by the Pro Obama media.; 12/5/11, 10:50 AM
Phil 314 said...: Carol Herman in hog heaven; 12/5/11, 10:53 AM
Peter said...: The phrase “faux news” appears to be an example of what Orwell called “duckspeak”; that is, the ritual quacking of some political formula. It reminds one of the phrases that were once commonly used on Radio Beijing, such as describing a newly out-of-power individual as a now-disgraced “lackey of the yellow running dogs of imperialism.”

Since all those opposed by the Politburo were ritually denounced as “lackeys of yellow running dog imperialists,” what exactly did the phrase convey- other than "shut up and stop thinking; we're having a two-minute hate here"?

In this context, I think a phrase such as "faux news"- especially if repeated- mostly just causes readers to not read whatever follows and move on to the next posting.; 12/5/11, 11:08 AM
sorepaw said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 12/5/11, 11:11 AM
purplepenquin said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 12/5/11, 11:12 AM
Bruce Hayden said...: First, I don't see Trump running this time as an independent. He would immediately lose whatever his attraction is to much of the Republican debate. The last thing that they need this time around is another Ross Perot spoiler, siphoning off much needed votes from turning the Obamas out of their 1600 Penn. mansion.

Sure, the guy is an ego hound. But, I will suggest that he will probably do as good of a job as many of the leftists who have moderated before on their leftward leaning networks.; 12/5/11, 11:13 AM
sorepaw said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 12/5/11, 11:13 AM
purplepenquin said...: Ya'll are on the 'net and yet you still watch news on the telly? How quaint.

That aside, it would do our country a lot of good if more people started voting outside the TwoPartyopoly. Hopefully The Trump could fire up a lotta folks and get them into the voting booths...; 12/5/11, 11:14 AM
sorepaw said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 12/5/11, 11:14 AM
purplepenquin said...: sorepaw, don't make this about me...that's boring.

But seeing how I took the time to say that, I might as well say that of course I would encourage people from all sides...from the left to the middle and even the down...to launch a serious effort for the White House. (Tho, I reckon that those on the top already have enough candidates running)

America deserves more than just two choices. Too many citizens are sitting home 'cause the only options available to 'em are Pepsi and Coke....some of us want a Sprite or maybe even a Root Beer for a change.; 12/5/11, 11:24 AM
Balfegor said...: I . . . what is Donald Trump doing moderating a debate in the first place? And stepping back, if they were going to spend this much time doing "debates," why didn't they have real debates, rather than soundbite face-offs? With the luxury of this much time, the moderators should only have been stepping in when there were people speaking over each other, etc. -- moderating, that is -- not throwing out the next topic for the next series of 30-second soundbites. Or arguing with the candidates.; 12/5/11, 11:27 AM
Scott M said...: Too many citizens are sitting home 'cause the only options available to 'em are Pepsi and Coke....some of us want a Sprite or maybe even a Root Beer for a change.

Would you put your soda money where your internet comments are if Sprite declared a primary challenge to an incumbent Pepsi in 2012? I remember quite a bit of similar talk from the left (though it was in person at work and such) in 2004, at least in terms of calling for a third-party or outsider run at Bush's re-election bid.

Perhaps if our system was based on run-off voting or some such, we would have more than the two-party system. On the other hand, multi-party systems tend to move bi-polar anyway (at least in terms of the legislative apparatus) and then are forced to cater to the minority parties for the odd couple of percentages needed to pass something. Sounds great in theory, but doesn't work out so well in fact. That doesn't make me a cheerleader for the two-party system. It's akin to Churchill's criticism of democracy.; 12/5/11, 11:32 AM
Christopher in MA said...: "Too many citizens are sitting home 'cause the only options available to 'em are Pepsi and Coke."

Well, then, they're not going to get their Sprite or A&W or Moxie by sitting at home. The only way to get more choices is ground work. Run for city council, or alderman or mayor or whatever. Run on a Libertarian ticket. Or a Monster Raving Loony Party ticket. But get a ground operation in place.

I suspect you despise the Tea Party, PP, but they at least, know that change can only come from the ground up. They're working at the local level to get TP candidates in office. At the moment, their wants put them more on the Repiblican side of the ledger, but that won't always be true, most especially as the national GOP leadership is as arrogant, insular and disdainful of real citizen involvement than any Democrat.

You want Sprite? Then, to torture a metaphor, don't walk into McDonald's and demand a Sprite. Go to the local corner grocery and get one. Or arrange to have Sprite delivered there. Then build from that.; 12/5/11, 11:36 AM
Hoosier Daddy said...: With the current slate, does anyone truly believe Romney isn't going to be the nominee?; 12/5/11, 12:00 PM
Psychedelic George said...: I hate to go off topic, but I just read in the NYT that our government has been laundering money for drug cartels for years.

Article is here.

To repeat--American officials...laundering and/or smuggling...millions of dollars...in drug money...over a period of years.

What's more, deep in the article it says there's no evidence this has done anything to stop the drugs. At all.

Not only does this make Watergate look like a parking ticket, it makes Gunrunner small change, too.

This is total Philip K. Dick territory. We are the drug cartel. Utter madness. Romney and Gingrich should be lunging for the throats of the Democrats.; 12/5/11, 12:05 PM
Paddy O said...: I would like to see Sarah Palin moderate a debate.; 12/5/11, 12:05 PM
ricpic said...: George Will and Karl Rove attacked The Donald, who attacked right back and most important, correctly said it's time for Republican rank and filers to stop deferring to Rove-ian Establishment Democrat-lite types.; 12/5/11, 12:08 PM
Michael said...: Virtually impossible for a third party candidate to win. Perot got nearly 25% of the popular vote and NOT ONE electoral vote.; 12/5/11, 12:10 PM
Christopher in MA said...: "Romney and Gingrich should be lunging for the throats of Democrats."

And yet they don't. And, moreover, won't. Why?; 12/5/11, 12:17 PM
Robert Cook said...: "This is total Philip K. Dick territory. We are the drug cartel. Utter madness. Romney and Gingrich should be lunging for the throats of the Democrats."

And you think the Republicans are not complicit in this...why?

It's an old story...the govenrment has no interest in stopping illicit drug use...their involvement with drug running simply keeps money flowing in, and by keeping drugs illegal, they have ample excuse to call for "necessary" increases in police authority and intrusion into our lives...forever.

Of course, the "drug war" as excuse to implement police state policies may be redundant...and moot. A few days ago the Senate passed a bill that would allow anyone, any American, to be declared unilaterally to be a terrorist and to be imprisoned without trial or access to a lawyer...forever.

We'll see if the House passes it.; 12/5/11, 12:22 PM
sorepaw said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 12/5/11, 12:29 PM
sorepaw said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 12/5/11, 12:32 PM
sorepaw said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 12/5/11, 12:34 PM
sorepaw said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 12/5/11, 12:36 PM
Christopher in MA said...: God knows I hate to find myself agreeing with Cook, but he's right. It profits the government (both in $ and power) to control the drug trade - basically, in knowing which laws to brutally enforce and which to sporadically enforce.

Romney and Gingrich are both tied into the power structure. They're as likely to go for the Democrats' throats as my puppies are to begin differential calculus.; 12/5/11, 12:43 PM
Amartel said...: 1. Curious G: Gwen "Totally, like, Neutral" Ifill, Paul Revere expert, moderated the debate between Sarah Palin and Joe Biden so, presto, even though she was getting set to publish a book celebrating Obama, no problem there. Er. Well, whatever. Palin won that debate which led to the one fun night of 2008, politically speaking, as the NBC hosties sat around all sad and forlorn until they received instructions on how to spin it.

2. Whoever calls it "Faux News" is definitely blowing smoke up their own ass.

3. Christopher in MA: Haha "short-fingered vulgarian" - someone else who used to read SPY? Was Trump the "short fingered vulgarian" or was it Leona Helmsley?

4. Trump should not moderate the debate. He's too self-referential and blow-hardy; it would be mainly about him rather than the candidates. It would be like getting O'Reilly to moderate. The candidates would get second place. The candidates have things to say (and explain) and they should be center-stage.; 12/5/11, 12:50 PM
Curious George said...: Amartel said...
1. Curious G: Gwen "Totally, like, Neutral" Ifill, Paul Revere expert, moderated the debate between Sarah Palin and Joe Biden..."

Good memory, you're right. Of course as you kind of eluded, the VP debates are proxies to the Presidential debate.; 12/5/11, 1:01 PM
Christopher in MA said...: Amartel - yes, definitely loved SPY back in the good old days. Trump was the SFV; I don't remember what they called Leona. And the only other nicknames I remember were "Abe (I'm Writing As Bad As I Can) Rosenthal" and his wife, "bosomy dirty book writer Shirley Lord."; 12/5/11, 1:12 PM
Spread Eagle said...: Romney hasn't drawn more than 30% of Republican voters in any national poll.

And that 30% he has comes from outside the Repub base. With the possible exception of Huntsman, there is no candidate in the R field with less support from the R base than Romney. Only Democrats, Rinos, and Mormons want Romney to get the nomination. Personally, I don't see how he can win.; 12/5/11, 1:14 PM
MadisonMan said...: Someone mentioned earlier (months ago) that the Republican Candidate might not be chosen before the Repulican Convention.

I still see that as a possibility.; 12/5/11, 1:27 PM
Anonymous said...: the Republican Candidate might not be chosen before the Repulican Convention.

Why bother choosing one at all? Obama's going to win.; 12/5/11, 1:34 PM
Joe Schmoe said...: Personally I think Trump will surprise some people and do pretty well with this. He'll play it pretty straight but I bet he will follow up vigorously on a few things.

If you don't like the idea of Trump as moderator, tell me how this is NOT the logical progression of 24/7 electioneering in this country. We've become too enamored of campaigns and not enamored enough of governing. If you start presidential campaigns 2 years before the election, then you're going to start seeing unconventional events to maintain interest. Welcome to Campaign Crack. (in reference to the drug, not the esteemed commenter Crack Emcee); 12/5/11, 1:38 PM
DADvocate said...: He shouldn't be moderating the debate anyway. It's a presidential election, not a circus. We're running headlong into Idiocracy.; 12/5/11, 1:58 PM
Robert Cook said...: "Why bother choosing one at all? Obama's going to win."

No matter who wins, the President will be a Republican.; 12/5/11, 2:20 PM
Hoosier Daddy said...: Good.; 12/5/11, 2:40 PM
sorepaw said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 12/5/11, 3:04 PM
Joe Schmoe said...: So Trump says it's good that Huntsman isn't going to show up because he has "zero chance" of getting the nomination.

How arrogant and ridiculous! And true.; 12/5/11, 3:22 PM
Jim said...: "Palin won that debate which led to the one fun night of 2008, politically speaking, as the NBC hosties sat around all sad and forlorn until they received instructions on how to spin it."

Wow. Talk about blowing smoke. You personally may have felt like she won, but every poll I ever saw (even Fox News' poll) showed that a solid majority saw Biden as the winner. Perhaps you should wait a few more years before trying to re-write history.

Palin did surprise people with how well she did in that debate, but that's only because she was so bad in the Couric/Gibson interviews. You know, the ones where she was ambushed by such unfair librul media gotcha questions as "what newspapers or magazines do you read?"; 12/5/11, 3:58 PM
Jim said...: Looking back at the polls again, I can't really say a "solid majority" said Biden won, because some of those polls had a large "undecided" factor that kept both Palin and Biden under 50%. So I'd revise that to say simply that, overall, more people reported seeing Biden as the winner and not Palin.; 12/5/11, 4:14 PM
Toad Trend said...: Well *if this is true* it just shows how big an ego can be. Not saying its necessarily bad.

I like the Donald.; 12/5/11, 4:16 PM
Carol_Herman said...: You just discovered America?

Anyway, I think Morry Taylor, who tried to get nominated by the republican's back in 1996 ... Will come out with a GRIZZLY ROAR.

Back in 1996, Morry was known as "THE GRIZZ." (Before Sarah Palin.) It's his mascot. And, he's the CEO of Titan Tire.

Michael Lewis mentions fascinating stuff about him. In TRAIL FEVER. Michael Lewis' personal account of following the GOP primaries. Back in 1996.

When you got Dole!

The GOP will come in 3rd, in 2012. It's the 3rd place winnah on my Trifecta Tickets. (I don't think Ron Paul or Ralph Nader, as independents, will get the "at least 5%" you need. To get "matching funds.")

I did put Donald Trump in for the win, though. Before I read about Morry Taylor.

You can also get Morry Taylor's book up at Amazon. He wrote it following his 1996 experience as a republican candidate. He calls it KILL ALL THE LAWYERS. He stole that from Shakespeare.

If Obama runs and wins, he won't have a congress who will work with him. And, democrats that don't quit first (like Barney Frank), will face the "Russ Feingold" fate ...

Don't depend on the media to tell you the truth!

For goodness sake ... the media is trying to make Newt Gingrich their GOP front runner! (Because? Well, you've got a field of 8 who collapsed.) Scratched.

If you're at the track? Don't bet the favorite! Picking the long shot odds are worth the two dollars.; 12/5/11, 4:39 PM
Robert Cook said...: "Cook, if this is so, why did Obama and other prominent Democrats endorse the OWSers (even if their endorsement was half-hearted and ultimately hypocritical), whereas no prominent Republican has given his or her backing to the OWSers?"

I really haven't seen much overt Democratic endorsement of the OWSers, but even you point out that what there has been has been half-hearted and hypocritical.

The Dems have to pander to their base, or try to pander to whomever they perceive to be supporters of the OWSers in order to garner their votes. This doesn't mean they actually support the OWSers, (although a rare few very well might). The Republicans have become a cult of fundamentalists, so even though the OWSers and the Tea Partiers overlap in some respects, the Republicans are trapped in their dogma and cannot afford to appear to offer even the slightest support or approval of the OWSers, (even if, privately, some may agree with them or support them to a degree).

But, such talk is all conjecture and hot air; we can only appraise according to actions, and by their actions ye shall know them: whoever wins will be a Republican.; 12/5/11, 4:52 PM
Hoosier Daddy said...: "... The Republicans have become a cult of fundamentalists,.."

Laugh out loud hysterical.; 12/5/11, 4:56 PM
Amartel said...: Jim, let it go, relax, she's not running. BTW, the phrase "to blow smoke up your own ass" refers to someone who is both lying to and flattering him/herself. Eg., morons who call Fox News "Faux News." Hope that's not you. Anyway, stating an opinion which was shared by a great many people is not lying or self-flattery. It's an opinion. Kind of like when you say you think she didn't win, it's an opinion. After all the hoopla about Palin being semi-retarded (which in retrospect was the product of grotesquely partisan media wishcasting) it was Biden who sounded hacky and stiff, and, as we've since come to expect, demonstrated his ability to confidently fuck up key facts with a big phony grin on his face. Your poll analysis is a bit lacking. Personally, I don't rely on CBS snap polls to tell me who won. Or Fox polls (nearly unanimous for Palin as I recall) or any other media poll. The media was so politicized in 2008 (and since) that such polling, especially snap polling, was simply not credible. In this highly politicized atmosphere, the most credible indicator of who won were the sad sad faces on Olbermann, Matthews and their Cheerleader Friends afterward.; 12/5/11, 5:20 PM
Jim said...: Amartel, telling me to "let it go" is funny, given that you brought it up and that you go on to write even more about it than I did. I'm totally relaxed and don't much care. You seem to be one worked up about it.

Call me crazy, but I find the scientific polling of public opinion to be a more reliable way to gauge public opinion than one partisan's reading of the faces of media hacks on a network that he hates. And I find any supposed polling work by GOP hack Frank Luntz to be even less reliable than that.

But, like you said, it's just an opinion. Let's let it go, already.; 12/5/11, 6:00 PM
Anonymous said...: "Scientific" = tells Jim what he already believes.; 12/5/11, 6:54 PM
Kirk Parker said...: Spread Eagle,

"Only Democrats, Rinos, and Mormons want Romney to get the nomination. "

Are you sure about that? I know plenty of Mormons who are a little more sophisticated than that, politically speaking. They'd love to see a Mormon in office, but that doesn't necessarily trump every other consideration.; 12/5/11, 9:18 PM
a psychiatrist who learned from veterans said...: Trump, 'I'm going to run for president on a third party.' Translation: Memo to Newt. (You say) The grain subsidies are opposed by city slickers. You'll pay off the rubes. Pay off ME!

Newt has shown some courage. Now, he should say in light of his friends declared conflict of interest he won't be attending the 'debate.'; 12/5/11, 11:30 PM
SGT Ted said...: Anybody who voted for Obama-Biden has no business making judgement on Sarah Palins level of intelligence.; 12/6/11, 9:19 AM
Jim said...: Campy obviously agrees with Amartel that Keith Olbmermann's facial expression is the most reliable indicator of what undecided voters across the country think of the candidates.

Smart guys, those two.; 12/6/11, 10:34 AM