Well, CM is probably the worst person to bring the issue of fairness up. My own legs still tingle, considering the BIAS he manifested in 2008 pro Obama. His remarks in terms of our Founding Fathers is also completely wrong. Those guys really insulted each other at times in the very worst way. Thus this ki9nd of campaigning is neither unfair nor unlawful. Where he at least has the finger on the truth is, that it is UNAMERICAN to wage a dirty campaign such as the one Romney manages. The way Gingrich was torn down to the extent that Obama's own popularity rose, was disgusting. Even more disgusting, that the voters evidently rewarded it. Just throw a lot of dirt and some of it will surely stick. That's why I will not support Romney

I'd value Reagan's son's opinion and endorsement for Gingrich anyday before Coulter's. Ask yourself - would you, if you could, elect Ronald Reagan today? If yes, here is a solid case plus endorsement by Reagan's son: http://www.newsmax.com/Pages/2... for the only true Reaganite in this field.

Would you elect Ronald Reagan today? If your answer is yes, check out this site: http://www.newsmax.com/Pages/2012?promo_code=DCE2-1 for the only true reaganite in this field. if even the son of one of the greatest Presidents in US history endorses Gingrich, maybe it is time to look at substance, not form.

Yet, 75% of the GOP do not trust Obama-Light. In spite of millions of dollars spent on tearing down Gingrich, inspite of Coulter and Krauthammar, inspite of the hatchet pieces by Will, inspite of the Dem controlled MSM, inspite of the best machine..... What does that tell you, Mrs. Coulter? It truly is Gingrich against almost all opi9nion makers, and he still leads nationally. Could it be, that the American People are smarter, than you think? Could it indeed be that we finally want substance over form, big feasible ideas, a track record of accomplishments, skills and knowledge? Subnstantive debates instead of an exchange of insults? Gingrich 2012!

Now I finally understand, what organization means. On pretty much all forums like here, there are evidently (paid) staff from the Romney and Paul campaign, focussed to spam the comments with their propaganda. People like Zone Blitz or pennysticks clearly fit the profile - this can no longer be considered as supporting a candidate, literally posting hundred comments. Bravo. There is only one problem with that - we are too smart to be bullshi*"ed. If you play the commercial too often, you will oversaturate the airwaves and create a counter-productive effect. If I hadn't voterd before for Gingrich - Now I definitely will.

Okay, let us stay positive. Please name some Paul accomplishments or tangible results. Now do the same for Romney. Now compare those with Newt's. Then, let's compare their plans, vision for the future. Then, let's compare their ability to drill down on the issues. Let's compare their ability to frame those and explain them to the American People, let us compare their debating skills, their ability to understand history and draw the right conclusions from it. Still questions?

If indeed Paul or Romney win Iowa, what would that in fact mean? That a candidate can buy elections? That it is all about money and organization? That going negative, slandering, smearing other candidates actually works? That pundits, journalists, the media make opinion, not report them? On facts and figures, before Romney, Paul, Perry and Bachmann poured millions into negative ads with Newt as primary target, Gingrich led by double digits.. Iowa - do you really want to become the template for this ugly, self-destructive way of competing, or do you want to prove to America, that Joe Blow is in fact much smarter, informed and ethical than to reward that kind of behaviour?

Gingrich accomplished: Balanced Budget, Budget surplusses, first tax cuts in decades, shrinkling of the government, welfare reform, contract with America. All of which he managed to do with a divided congress a n d a Dem President as blockade. Paui wrote radical newsletters, was a lone prophet, but stood alone. And that is the problem. He does not get majorities, he can't win over the needed votes to get factual change implemented. Gingrich logically made enemies, he bullied, flattered, cajoled, convinced, pushed over, ran over and dealt like a Las Vegas dealer in a backroom.Gingrich admittedly is a tough, imperfect, zany, sometimes mean SOB - BUT HE GOT THE JOB DONE., which is exactly what we need right now. Not just words, but results

Can we really afford not to be pragmatic, unemotional and sober this time around? Can we afford not to simply compare track records on substantive issues concerning the entire nation? Why these attacks on character, divorces and person? We must compare their record, their plans and platform. Their ability to frame those and contrast them with Obama's intentions. We must compare knowledge of the issues, the ability to draw the right conclusion from history. We must compare their vision for America. If we stay on topic, forget for a moment the sleaze, the negative ads, the BS, but focus on the issues, then we all should come to the conclusion that Newt would be the logical choice.

Look at the recent weeks. While Romney, Paul, Perry and Bachman plastered the airwaves with negative adverts, Obama's popularity ratings surged. We selfimplode, we self-destruct, we infight, while the nation goes down the drain. A respectful, tough, but polite competition, focusing on Obama, on substance and policies would never have helped Obama. Instead, those self-absorbed, powerhungry ignorants successfully tore down Gingrich, while boosting Obama's ratings. Bravo. The GOP is really a bunch of morons and sometimes I am ashamed to belong to this party. Does this really boil down to who can slander the best? My vote goes to Newt for the courage alone to be the only one trying to remain on the issues.