The day after being spanked over the Ryan Medicare-Killing Budget, Senate Republicans voted for it almost unanimously. The “no” voters were Lisa Murkowski, Susan Collins, Scott Brown, Olympia Snowe, and Rand Paul. Paul said the cuts in the budget weren’t deep enough.
Newt continues his quest to be the most pathetic man on the planet. He is now pledging his loyalty to the Ryan budget an instead is attacking “Obamacare.”
However, I say leave Newt alone about the $500,000 in charges at Tiffany’s. It appears at least some of the bling went to Callista. Compensation for, um, consortium? I mean, he’s Newt. At least she’s getting some nice jewelry.
Don’t miss these videos (transcripts included) of GOP Rep. Rob Woodall. Watch me first; watch me second.
Compensation for, um, consortium?
Naw, I’d guess compensation for lack of charm and sex appeal. Any women in her right mind would probably rather have a tarantula crawling over her flesh than a lecher like Newt crawling and salivating all over her.
Yeah, I’d go with the tarantula. No contest.
I heard that Newt isn’t running for president to win, but rather just for the money that campaign funding brings. I wasn’t aware that candidates get to keep whatever’s in their war chest when they retire from politics and with that hefty bill from Tiffany’s that idea might have some merit to it.
They can’t. Candidates can’t use leftover campaign money for personal use. Newt can give some limited amount to his PAC, I think, but otherwise he has to give it away.
Doesn’t Newt have one or two “educational” organizations which he heads… and for which he receives a salary? If these groups depend on contributions, then people can donate there and he gets a large salary.
Newt’s only running for his scam. He needs to keep his ugly, fat puss out there on TV and talk radio or else people might forget who he is and not send money when he asks for it in the mail.
Newt’s is ‘the grift that runs on giving.’
Here’s my favorite line from Rep. Woodall, when asked why he takes the federal health care instead of having to buy it like others:
“It’s because it’s free,” Woodall replied. “It’s because it’s free. The same reason I went out to Walgreens and bought Activon when I don’t have any arthritis pain…”
Sarah Palin must have started giving logic lessons. I never knew “free” and “bought” were synonymous. WTF?
Also, too, why would you get Activon if you didn’t need it? Does he get Vagisil even though he’s a dick?
Apparently, to Woodall “provided by taxpayers” is “free,” too.
And isn’t he one of those whom we can most easily imagine spouting self-righteous crap lines like “There’s no such thing as a free lunch!” to encourage seniors to try getting along without their Social Security?
I suppose “Tiffanygate” will come as a shock to some of the of the Republican stalwarts among the lower socio-economic strata (you know, parasitic working stiffs, who don’t realize how their lack of initiative and talent handicaps our economy) Rich people live in a world that we can only imagine as if “in a glass darkly” and I think for most working people it’s probably better not to think about it at all.
To the American conservative mindset wealth is simply an indication of virtue, and materialism on such a grand scale, is almost heroic. It’s a kind of Calvinism on steroids. The twin identities of a man of wealth and a man of the people seem difficult to reconcile, but it is necessary to do so. Gingrich once was the daddy figure that has made the hero’s journey into the land of the big bucks and must have the knowledge to bestow the gift of prosperity. Rich people, not demand, create jobs, don’t you know. It’s a lot easier to conceive of a class of people as the agents of prosperity than it is to attribute it to an abstraction, like “demand”. Plus, it provides a comforting and protective “daddy” to serve as validation that the system, unregulated capitalism, works. Those poor schmucks among us just need to get on the stick and wait their turn!
John Edward’s $400 haircut was only a problem because, he wasn’t one of the gang. It also came out that “Mittens” paid much more for his pre-debate “makeover”. It didn’t stick to him, because, hey, it was Mitt, no chance in Hell of him being “one of the guys”. And imagine what Donald Trump is paying for that improved lousy combover. Nobody cares.
The bloom is off of Newtie’s rose. It will hurt him a bit, but he already has so many self inflicted wounds that it really won’t matter. If anyone seriously thought he had a chance, they might raise a stink. At this point he is little more than a clown providing peripheral entertainment. He is a familiar clown and a former insider with wads of wingnut welfare and a few good scams to keep his seat at the circus. But, he’ll never call the shots again.
All that drivel being said, when I see Newt and Callista together, I’m just happy that they found each other.
I’m sure there are creative ways to “give the money back to themselves” such as funneling the money to a nonprofit run by a friend or family and then somehow that money gets used as a salary when that candidate gets employed by that organization. Either way, I’m sure there are loopholes to keeping that money, especially if giving it away can come full circle. It’s been said Newt’s a smart guy, so it wouldn’t surprise me if found a way to cheat the system.
My understanding that campaign finance law is pretty tight about such things, and that the funds would have to be laundered several times before it got back to Newt. And, anyway, his donations have just about dried up, so it’s unlikely he’s going to get out of this with much of a haul. It’s more likely the campaign will end in the red.
It’s been said that space aliens landed at Roswell. I’m not seeing any evidence of that, either.
Slightly OT- Debbie Wasserman Schultz giving it to Republicans:
http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/05/dnc-chair-on-top-2012-gopers-im-concerned-about-their-commitment-to-american-exceptionalism.php?ref=fpb
Beautiful.
Please, Ma’am, can we have some more?…
I’d love to think the voters of NY-26 gave the republicans a spanking, but in reality, ultra-right conservatism still garnered 52% of the vote, albeit split between two candidates. Apparently a majority of the people in this district still want to dismantle medicare; they were just undecided who was the right candidate to do it.