Probably one of the worse endorsements you could get......."LOL"...

Too bad Attila the Hun is dead. One more endorsement gone.

Now for Romney to endorse Gingrich, then this thing will be over.

It's hell when politically you can't just say "thanks but no thanks"!!!!!!

It would be his luck that Bush will now come out in his support ............

To Romney's credit ... he doesn't let any of these nut cases into his inner circle ... Palin included!

Puleeeezzzz nominate Gingrich!!!! Please, please, please, please nominate Gingrigh!!!!! Please...

You can't be serious--unless of course you are an Obama supporter.

Whomever the nomination is, they will have an uphill battle fighting Obama. If it is Romney, he will have a REALLY hard time attacking Obamacare since it was based on his own Romneycare in Massachusetts. Rick Santorum - looks too much like a creepy white supremist cult leader. Gingrich - he may have a fighting chance if doesn't choose some off-the-wall insane weirdo to be his running mate.

Jean--You're kidding right? Obama/Biden 2012!!!!!

I do respect Herman Cain as a man but was surprised at his weak defense and capitulation, Newt is not an honest man imho {Iworked as an historian for Fannie mae}what a damn BIG FAT LIE! Newt was hired by the top lobbyist at Fannie Mae. So I would not trust this man to be president. Ron Paul is an honest man and a principled man Mitt Romney very honest family man {squeaky clean} I could support either of these men. I am a pro life person but Santorum being against birth control? Why the hell would anyone be against birth control?

Obama/Biden out in 2012...

Will-1091847 Gingrich - he may have a fighting chance if doesn't choose some off-the-wall insane weirdo to be his running mate.

=============

......Ummm, would anyone be able to tell the difference between the two? If not, why not go with Rush Limbaugh or Glen Beck?

That means that Gingrich will inherit both of Cain's followers.

"Why the hell would anyone be against birth control?'

==============

....Two words: Catholic Church (but the rythmn method is okay, duh)

Sandtrich, I didn't realize it was that many.

Life and Lib-
Because he's a meddlesome, sanctimonious prig who, like all of his right-wing fanatical religious cohorts, wants to be able to tell everybody else what HE thinks they should and should not be able to do in their homes...as well as other places.

Both have a couple of things in common; they wouldnt mind "open relationships" and a little Ménage à trois while pandering with big banks and lobbysts in return for 15% taxes on million dollar salaries.....what a joke

The repubs clown circus continues. The yuks just keep coming. Hollywood couldn't write this script. Losers and douche baggers! ROLFLMAO!

Really couldn't have gone any other way. Herman and Newt are both "Georgia" me..meee.....men! Both have had successfully careers in various confidence rackets. Both are quite accomplished at helping people who have lost money, look for it and never find it. Both love elllicit sex with vulnerable women. ( Newts alleged rendezvous with an animal who shall remain nameless notwithstanding.) Additionally, reports are, both men are presently clean of any venereal diseases. Both men are good traditional christians, therefore Herman could never support the "cultist" mormon, Romney. Goes without saying too, He views Santorum as all southerner's do, an inferior yankee.

You know the old saying "birds of a feather flock together."

LOL...an Adulterer endorsing an Adulterer..you can't make this $hit up!

Sandtrich: It's been an unusually warm winter thus far in the south. Beginning to show some signs of cooler and more winter like weather now. I am hoping Newt can safely continue down here through super tuesday. Gets cold enough though, it will be dangerous for him to get near a barn in Georgia during hog killing time.

As always, good to see you may friend. Regards

O'bama, Gingrich, Romney.....who cares? None of this bull@!$%# is going to change.

Well, this should just about sew up the nomination... ...for Romney. the endorsement from Cain is sure to cost Gingrich some support. It is too bad that Gingrich could not just ask Cain to keep quiet. Romney has a chance at beating Obama, Gingrich has no chance at all. Romney is moderate enough to draw the independents and conservative democrats who are fed up with Obama. Gingrich is too far right to draw these constituencies and his far right base is no where near big enough to beat Obama. With Romney as the candidate the split will be no more than about 5% in the popular vote between the candidates one way or the other. With Gingrich, Obama will win reelection in a landslide of at least a 10% popular vote difference. This country can not take 4 more years of Obama and his policies, so I certainly hope the Romney gets the nomination.

@Roadhouse blues

Rush Limbaugh long ago threw in his lot with the Neo-Conservatives and has pushed Mitt Romney & Michelle Bachmann for the most part.

Rush Limbaugh long ago threw in his lot with the Neo-Conservatives and has pushed Mitt Romney & Michelle Bachmann for the most part.

You dont listen to Rush much obviously. Pushed Mitt Romney? heheh

Gingrich - he may have a fighting chance if doesn't choose some off-the-wall insane weirdo to be his running mate.

Maybe Gingrich/Cain 2012 ? Who needs the womens vote anyway?

Maybe Gingrich/Cain 2012 ? Who needs the womens vote anyway?

Or the Southern Christian conservative vote...

Or the White Supremist vote... (some overlap there)

If all of the racist white Christians in the South stay home on election day, Obama is guarenteed a win.

JS in SD

Well, this should just about sew up the nomination... ...for Romney. the endorsement from Cain is sure to cost Gingrich some support. It is too bad that Gingrich could not just ask Cain to keep quiet. Romney has a chance at beating Obama, Gingrich has no chance at all. Romney is moderate enough to draw the independents and conservative democrats who are fed up with Obama.

Let me stop you right there. Romney will not get support from Democrats. He's all about the 1%. He comes across as phony and out of touch with the concerns of middle class voters. Republicans will go to the polls in lockstep to vote for him, and he might get some independents to vote for him, but Democrats? No way, Jose.

Gingrich is too far right to draw these constituencies and his far right base is no where near big enough to beat Obama. With Romney as the candidate the split will be no more than about 5% in the popular vote between the candidates one way or the other. With Gingrich, Obama will win reelection in a landslide of at least a 10% popular vote difference. This country can not take 4 more years of Obama and his policies, so I certainly hope the Romney gets the nomination.

I think from what we've seen so far of the GOP candidates, Republicans had better forget about measuring for new drapes in the White House.

Why didn't Cain stay in and defend his "innocence"?

Newt's balls are big enough to get away with it.

He didn't try to deny his.

I bet Newt picks Herman Cain to be his running mate.

Well,they are a match marinmom - I think their views on marriage and the family are similar.

WRONG!!!! When asked if he endorsed Gingrich, in a moment of sanity, Cain said, "Nein, nein, nein!"

Oh god,I forgot about Colbert,Eugene! Boiler room politics!

Buffale51,

LACKLUSTER ? What a gentle assessment of the Republican contenders. You are one kind person!

It's in the same pile of "let's throw it out and see if it sticks" - just like his 9-9-9!

What about Palin and Perry endorsing him? Newt 'traded' them jobs in the White House for their endorsements; wonder what he offered Hermie? I don't understand how either of those can help him.

"wonder what he offered Hermie?"

========

.............Pizza will be named the national food of the US of A.

dotsheriff - Cain already said he wants to be Secretary of Defense - even though he couldn't find or identify any countries

Palin only endorsed Newt for South Carolina. A Romney victory at that point would not have been in the best interests of the party.

Barbara -please - do not scare the children! :0

Newt can hire Cain as an HISTORIAN

Barbara Adams Jackson

dotsheriff - Cain already said he wants to be Secretary of Defense - even though he couldn't find or identify any countries

==========

....which is okay, because he meant defense against sexual harassment charges.

DB Akron

Newt already announced Palin would have a "prominent" position. I assumed Perry and Palin would be the White House jesters. At least that would be two that he might be smarter than.

dotsheriff - I assumed he meant the missionary position.

@ RealAmericanFirst: With Palins claims of a strong background in "animal husbandry" I think She would insist on a more traditional "dog" position. Course thats just my opinion.

Old vet., you have proof of this? Where, how?? Really hard proof that they cheated! Did you happen to notice that all the women who claimed sexual harrasment against Cain, came out of CHICAGO???? Isn't that a real coincindence?? Obamas home town! Imagine that! Cain was only in Chicago a couple of times, and yet he gropped all these women. YA , RIGHT!! If there are no facts, then what you say, is gossip! Have you notice that as soon as he got out of the race, the women disappered?? Might want to have facts before you GOSSIP!!!

veteran44 - Actually these women did not come out of Chicago - they all worked with Herman at National Restaurant Association 1200 17th St., NW • Washington, D.C. 20036

Just imagine that wrong again

And the women did not disappear and received settlements - but a fourth that did not work at the NRA came forward - outed by Fox News, by the way and lives in Atlanta Georgia - who had a 13 year relationship with Herman

So what's this about Chicago?

But nice try for trying to bring our President into this - oh well there's always a next time

Thank you, Barbara, for saving me the trouble of looking up the stuff Veteran44 should have looked up before he posted. Oh, well, some veterans have traumatic brain injury.

No need for the Democrats to try to discredit the Republican candidates this time around, veteran.

They're doing well enough with the friendly fire and self-inflicted wounds.

@Barbara Adams Jackson: Lets not forget certain rural areas where innocent sheep abide. How many ewes oh Lord!?

Obama is gonna wipe either one of these out-of-touch Repubs right off the map. Gingrich (funny how the name (rich) is in his name ) is just a straight fool, while Nit-Witt Mitt thinks that the lying tounge and the silver spoon in his mouth gives him carte blanche to the White House. Karma will keep Obama in office, and the Repubs will learn once and for all that crime AND slime, does not pay!

Yohanes-1903374

Black workers have no work ethic's.

==========

...........Cain isn't black....he's a Republican!

Maybe Cain is not a worker.

Well, we know that Romney isn't a "worker".

You know, since he doesn't make any "wages", just "carried interest".

@ Roadhouse Blues, so if a black man is successful and rich, he is no longer black??? I guess we know who the real racist here is...

Hello Boomer, with the fine selection of republican candidates to choose from I understand why you would vote for Ron Paul rather than Newt, who is crazy and Romeny who is just, just not.... Presidential material. But you say you want Paul to have infuence at the convention and with the young... and then you say you still believe in "our system". Ron Paul has a few good ideas... but his most consistent message is that he wants to get rid of "our system". Take Paul's statements and then look v e r y closely behind them. I think he is just laying the groundwork for his son Rand's future campaign.

I think you are on the money about Ron Paul,Boomer. I don't believe he can be elected nationally(and I didn't say whether he should or not,just that I don't think he can). But I think like many "outside" candidates he will have a great deal of influence.Perhaps that will benefit the whole country in the end.

Rufo - I had not thought about his son.Wow.Interesting. But the son is not the father by a long shot!

Ron Paul is not going to be nominated or elected to anything. He's a hick who has shown he's a racist, a dull-witted anti-abortionist, a global warming flip-flopper and denier, and a rabid Christian who is completely ignorant of the Constitution, corrupting it to advance his personal beliefs. At the very least, Ron Paul allowed his name to be used by racists in his employ to publish racist rants like "Given the inefficiencies of what D.C. laughingly calls the 'criminal justice system,' I think we can safely assume that 95 percent of the black males in that city are semi-criminal or entirely criminal."

Paul has no problem banning abortions, even though such bans were outlawed by Rowe v. Wade, but just thinks it's a state's job to do so because of his warped view of the 10th Amendment. Paul has stated that because he delivered 4000 babies, he knows that life begins at conception (this is as stupid a statement as he's ever uttered--when life begins has been, is, and will always be a question for philosophers or politicians, and certainly not some quirky physician who delivered babies when he was in the Army).

Ron Paul is also a global warming flip-flopper and now a global warming denier. In 2008, he had this to say about global warming: "It is clear that the earth experiences natural cycles in temperature. However, science shows that human activity probably does play a role in stimulating the current fluctuations. By 2009, Paul was singing a different tune: "The greatest hoax I think that has been around for many, many years if not hundreds of years, has been this hoax on [...] global warming." Even if Ron isn't being paid off by Big Oil, he's still doing their bidding. The concept that humans cause global warming is shared by the vast majority of legitimate climatologists in the world; only scientists hired by Big Oil promulgate the myth that global warming is a hoax or is not caused by human activities. Moreover, his claim that global warming has been a hoax for hundreds of years is so obviously wrong: concerns about global warming have not existed for "hundreds of years." I was around for the first "Earth Day" in 1970, and global warming or climate change wasn't an issue then. I'd say it became a topic of discussion about 15 years ago. Paul's statement about there being a global warming hoax for hundreds of years is patently ridiculous.

However, the most frightening aspect of this dogmatic old fart's belief system is his conviction that we are a Christian nation. According to Ron, "The Founding Fathers envisioned a robustly Christian yet religiously tolerant America, with churches serving as vital institutions that would eclipse the state in importance." This is demonstrably wrong, according to no less an authority than the United States Supreme Court, which has consistently recognized that the purpose of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment was to build or erect a wall separating Church and State, according to Thomas Jefferson, whose group crafted the clause:

"[A]t the first session of the first Congress the amendment now under consideration was proposed with others by Mr. Madison. It met the views of the advocates of religious freedom, and was adopted. Mr. Jefferson afterwards, in reply to an address to him by a committee of the Danbury Baptist Association (8 id. 113), took occasion to say: 'Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God; that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship; that the legislative powers of the government reach actions only, and not opinions,-I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between church and State. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore man to all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.' Coming as this does from an acknowledged leader of the advocates of the measure, it may be accepted almost as an authoritative declaration of the scope and effect of the amendment thus secured." Reynolds v. United States, 98 U.S. 145, 164 (1878).
"Neither a state nor the Federal Government can, openly or secretly, participate in the affairs of any religious organizations or groups and vice versa. "In the words of Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect 'a wall of separation between Church and State.'" Everson v. Board of Education, 330 U.S. 1, 16, citing Reynolds v. United States, supra, 98 U.S. at page 164.

"This Court first reviewed a challenge to state law under the Establishment Clause in Everson v. Board of Ed. of Ewing, 330 U.S. 1, 67 S.Ct. 504, 91 L. Ed. 711 (1947).1 Relying on the history of the Clause, and the Court's prior analysis, Justice Black outlined the considerations that have become the touchstone of Establishment Clause jurisprudence: Neither a State nor the Federal Government can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion over another. Neither a State nor the Federal Government, openly or secretly, can participate in the affairs of any religious organization and vice versa.2 "In the words of Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect 'a wall of separation between church and State.' "Everson, 330 U.S., at 16, 67 S.Ct., at 511 (quoting Reynolds v. United States, 98 U.S. 145, 164, 25 L. Ed. 244 (1878)). The dissenters agreed: "The Amendment's purpose ... was to create a complete and permanent separation of the spheres of religious activity and civil authority by comprehensively forbidding every form of public aid or support for religion." 330 U.S., at 31–32, 67 S.Ct., at 519–520 (Rutledge, J., dissenting, joined by Frankfurter, Jackson, and Burton, JJ.); accord, Lee v. Weisman, 505 US 577, 599-600 (1992).

So what does Paul say about these court decisions: "Through perverse court decisions and years of cultural indoctrination, the elitist, secular Left has managed to convince many in our nation that religion must be driven from public view. The justification is always that someone, somewhere, might possibly be offended or feel uncomfortable living in the midst of a largely Christian society, so all must yield to the fragile sensibilities of the few. The ultimate goal of the anti-religious elites is to transform America into a completely secular nation, a nation that is legally and culturally biased against Christianity." So this arrogant twit, who is not educated in law, purports to be a higher legal authority on what the Founding Fathers intended by the religious clauses in the First Amendment than the Supreme Court, the final authority on what the Constitution means, has consistently ruled since 1878.

Just because Paul wants to dismantle the federal government and eliminate federal income taxes, as you may want, and will allow you to smoke pot (unless the states continue to outlaw it) doesn't make him a fit candidate for President of the United States. His brand of government may have worked in the 19th Century, but certainly not in the 21st. He keeps being rejected by the electorate because too many of his ideas are just plain kooky.

Michael L. Marowitz
J.D., J.S.M. (Master's Degree in Law with emphasis on constitutional law, Stanford Law School, 1981)

Another unemployed lawyer.

Ron Paul will be unemployed pretty soon, as he's not running for reelection at his regular job.

Careful Boomer, you might learn something.

Always a possibility.

Bluelake, some people don't want to learn anything, they just believe what they're told.

Another unemployed lawyer.

===========

.............Unwarranted comment.

Agreed. I extend my apology.

Boomer--Respect. Assuming it's sincere, a decent apology. Thanks.

First to have 999 pizza on the moon..........good idea......."LOL"

Yeh, Newt is probably the Godfather Pizza Doughboy........He'll look great in the pizzza ads lmao

Most do.

... or idiots v. clowns

Isn't it sad when the election comes down the the "lesser of evils"?

Only if you make decision based on negatives instead of positives. There are 4 selections, and one is actually postive, one is ridiculous and the other two are fighting over the sandbox.

But DB, in this case there ARE no positives.

........kinda like Clinton and Edwards.........

yep, exactly!

delete

Are Clinton and Edwards currently running for President?

Deflect much?

I can think of only one who is perfect. He is not here to run and any others will never live up to your standards as they are human.

Exactly right! I'm an Evangelical Christian who will be voting for Romney in the AZ primary. Why, because of all the viable candidates he has the best values, ethics and morals, as well as business sense, which is what this country needs right now, Smart Leadership, not some dip like Newt who promises people the moon to get votes. The guy is like a rerun of Groundhog Day. He failed when he was Speaker and now all he does is stir peoples emotions with immflamtory and deceitful remarks about Romney, to deflect attention from his own jaded past.

I have a Fidelity 2020 IRA. You know what. They invest in all sorts of funds that I don't even have the time to track. I have no real idea or interest where the money is invested as long as I am making gains and dividends. That is how those accounts work. Same for Mitt. I wish I had been as successful as Romney. Who doesn't, that's the American dream, or at least it was until Gingrich came along to bash it to pieces in favor of a moon colony. He made his money pandering to Fannie Mae, that's just like being a hooker.

A vote for Paul or Santorum is a vote taken away from Mitt. Vote for Mitt!!

You should look into those mutual funds. You might be surprised that some of those investments are 180 degrees out from your beliefs and standards as a self proclaimed Evangelical Christian. Odd how you proclaim your standards and likes and dislikes in paragraph one, then say in paragraph two that you don't care how you make it as long as the gains and dividends roll in. That's what I dislike about people who wear their so called "Christianity" on their sleeves. I suppose there's someone else to blame it on?

Boomer, did he say that he would approve of ill-gotten money? No, he said that he doesn't know exactly where they invest his money. Meaning what companies, countries, etc. Do you know where your mutual funds are invested, or your pension fund, if you have any of these?? We have a 403b through work, and I can't tell you where they invest. You make comments without thought. There is nothing un-christian about not knowing where your investments are being held. YOU are the a@# here!

Yes, I do know. It is not difficult to find out. You merely have to ask. It is your responsibility as it is mine to know where my money is held. My comments were not made without thought. I'm not the one who proclaims to be a Evangelical Christian and then states he doesn't care where the money comes from as long as it keeps rolling in.

@Boomer You know, I probably should have said 'it didn't matter so much to me', because I do not have the time to investigate every company or fund they invest in. I do receive the prospectus, but like most people, who has time to go through them and look into each individual company and their track records? The sad reality is even if I did that, I would likely not find any fund that totally squares up with my values and I would end up having to put the money in a crummy bank account.

You might be surprised. A phone call, an email, next thing you know you have lists of companies and countries. It really is easy. More people should do it if for no other reason to keep from overlapping funds as much as possible.

There are funds who specifically invest in only green, or humanitarian, or whatever you believe in. You just have to ask a broker or look them up online. Then, instruct your blind trust manager to only invest in those funds.

Dont vote-you are too dumb to make a rational decision. Go watch your two dollar investments instead.

not knowing might be safer, if one finds out of evil done in their own name, then comes the responsibility to act ethically, which may be painful or at least not economically beneficial. Hence I believe one of the major flaws of the Evangelicals. Personally as a Christian I do believe I am responsible for all of my actions and choices (even when they are sinful). So that said it is also important that I vote my Christian values, which is not often easy.

If you base your vote on Christian values the why would you vote for ANY republican't. They continue to vote against the poor and downtrodden. Would Jesus or Alla or any other diety do so. WWJD? Vote with the Rich and selfish? Is it abortion you worry about? Would you perfer to expand the government take over of your morality and deny you the constitutionally protected individual right to make your own decisions about what is right for you and your families. That is why Republicans are hypocrytes. Vote Democrat and preserve America. President Obama governs from a moderate conservative position. Reject teabagger facsism which threatens to run the Republiwon'ts into the ditch.

And for a little bacground history.. The following is for a video from a 1986 God Father's Pizza Corporate Training Department featuring CEO Herman Cain.

Search youtube search "herman cain 1986 sexual harassment training"

it wouldn't let me post a link, Sorry.

Oh yaaa............moderates always get the job done. HAHAHAHAhahahaa........

Moderate = Stand for nothing

There is no such thing as a wasted vote, only a difference in opinion of what is best for the country. Ron Paul has great influence with the young who will eventually be the leaders of this country. He is reasonable, plain spoken and most often correct. I do not agree with his foreign policy or lack of it but that usually changes for any candidate who becomes president and then is presented with the facts of life that he must deal with.

that is exactly what got us into this mess. not voting and letting the media decide who is going to run the country. ron paul 2012

@Boomer. I stand corrected. A vote for Ron Paul is not a wasted vote. However the man has NO chance of winning the Whitehouse. No one with real money will bank roll him. My point was to purge the legislature of the Teatards and maybe, just maybe we can move forward as a country. The politics of NO COMPROMISE don't work.

You are both right and wrong. I know that Ron Paul cannot win. But he will have influence which will show in the leaders of the future.

With good leadership there will be compromise. Effective leadership is currently lacking in both parties and the general population seems more than willing to continue the division by their continual finger pointing over who is to blame and the irresponsible name calling.

Bless your heart,cgtrav,that is so sweet of you.