President (To Win Colorado) See Full Big Line

(D) Kamala Harris

(R) Donald Trump

80%

20%

CO-01 (Denver) See Full Big Line

(D) Diana DeGette*

(R) V. Archuleta

98%

2%

CO-02 (Boulder-ish) See Full Big Line

(D) Joe Neguse*

(R) Marshall Dawson

95%

5%

CO-03 (West & Southern CO) See Full Big Line

(D) Adam Frisch

(R) Jeff Hurd

50%

50%

CO-04 (Northeast-ish Colorado) See Full Big Line

(R) Lauren Boebert

(D) Trisha Calvarese

90%

10%

CO-05 (Colorado Springs) See Full Big Line

(R) Jeff Crank

(D) River Gassen

80%

20%

CO-06 (Aurora) See Full Big Line

(D) Jason Crow*

(R) John Fabbricatore

90%

10%

CO-07 (Jefferson County) See Full Big Line

(D) B. Pettersen

(R) Sergei Matveyuk

90%

10%

CO-08 (Northern Colo.) See Full Big Line

(D) Yadira Caraveo

(R) Gabe Evans

70%↑

30%

State Senate Majority See Full Big Line

DEMOCRATS

REPUBLICANS

80%

20%

State House Majority See Full Big Line

DEMOCRATS

REPUBLICANS

95%

5%

Generic selectors
Exact matches only
Search in title
Search in content
Post Type Selectors
November 28, 2011 09:03 PM UTC

Gingrich Endorsed by "Union Leader," Which is Not a Person

  • 40 Comments
  • by: Colorado Pols

We know that our readers here at Colorado Pols are far too astute to make a silly error such as the one that many Twitter users made over the weekend. As you may have heard, Republican Presidential contender Newt Gingrich received the endorsement of the Manchester Union Leader over the holiday weekend, an important endorsement in New Hampshire given that the Leader is the only statewide newspaper.

But as Gawker reports, many conservatives around the country were more than a little confused by all of this:

Still: Twitter remained unconvinced. Does this change the media narrative? Is Romney in trouble? Will conservatives rally around Gingrich? wondered hundreds of irritating people. And more importantly, many keen political followers asked, why did a union boss just endorse Newt Gingrich? [Pols emphasis]

Take a look at the Gawker post for a good list of Tweets from people who clearly didn’t understand the news. This is one of our favorites:

the same union that just endorsed Newt did the same for McCain in 2008…hmmm … telling

Yes…telling indeed. But not for the reason you think, conservative Twitter user.

Tweet
Share

Comments

40 thoughts on “Gingrich Endorsed by “Union Leader,” Which is Not a Person”

    1. I mean, we’re shocked that there are ignorant folks in the party with a substantial number of mouth-breathers who don’t believe in evolution?  The R party long ago alienated educated moderates who used to vote R because they hate taxes and crime, exchanging those folks for the ignorant Joe The Plumbers of the PalinVerse.

        2. … in your fantasy world where your opponents all are secretly Cold War era mass-murderer communists?

          I guess I see why Mitt Romney being the most dishonest pol since Nixon is irrelevant to you: if Mitt’s opponents all are Stalins, then denying all of Mitt’s flaws is a moral imperative, right?

          We had a dude like you a few months ago, am evolution-denier named BJ. Love of Jesus justifies lies In His Name, right?

    2. dirty politics, immoral and unethical lapses on the part of Republican politicians all garner a yawn from you.

      That’s because you fundamentally agree with those tactics.

            1. is when ArapaGOP started throwing it out there that he is a devout Christian. Being religious is SO IN !.  Next week we may be required to address him as Jesus.

                  1. after what seemed like a lifetime of hard crime, like pinching my sister until she cried, or sneaking potato chips, I realized I was headed toward a dead end and hurting the ones I loved the most – something in my life had to change.  It was then that I turned to Jesus Christ.

                    1. … but only to a narrow subset of the population. Not “people of faith,” which is broad, nor “evangelical Christians,” which is narrower but still encompasses a diverse group of people, but “people who shove their particular brand of evangelism down your throat.”

                    2. But I had to point it out – who the fuck gets an epiphany like that at 6 ?  I mean really.  Its just dumb.

                    3. I was brought to church from birth, but it was only around the age of six that any of it started making sense…

                    4. which makes “sense” to a six-year old . . .

                      … but it was only around the age of six that any of it started making sense…

                      . . . is often found to be foolish nonsense by many twelve-year olds.

                      When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things.  1 Corinthians 13:11

                      (Do we have a “Bingo” anywhere, yet?)

                       

  4. This from the last debate:

    GINGRICH: But let me make a deeper point. There’s a core thing that’s wrong with this whole city. You said earlier that it would take too long to open up American oil. We defeated Nazi Germany, fascist Italy, and Imperial Japan in three years and eight months because we thought we were serious.

    If we were serious, we would open up enough oil fields in the next year that the price of oil worldwide would collapse. Now, that’s what we would do if we were a serious country. If we were serious…

    Now, the U.S. would have to increase field production by more than double current production to become oil independent by increasing domestic production to 14.8 Mbopd. Even peak production in 1970 of 10,000 bopd would only meet 68% of current crude oil consumption. To bring about a collapse in world oil prices, as Mr. Gingrich suggests, would mean increasing U.S. production by substantially more than this.

    Maximum daily production from Prudhoe Bay Field, the largest in the United States, was 1.5 million bopd in 1979 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prudhoe_Bay_Oil_Field). Mr. Gingrich suggests that we can find more than six additional Prudhoe Bay-sized fields in one year. Prudhoe Bay was discovered in 1968, did not begin production for 11 years, and did not reach peak production until 1989, 21 years after its discovery. But Mr. Gingrich thinks that there are many Prudhoe Bay fields waiting to be found that can be at explored, developed and brought to peak production in one year.

    It is difficult to imagine that Mr. Gingrich could be unaware of these fundamental facts and probabilities. If so, he must be placed in a lower category than Rick Perry and Herman Cain, who simply could not remember what they presumably knew. The only other possibility is that he knows the reality of oil supply and is misleading to the American people in order to gain support for a positive “can do” message. Either way, it is clear that Mr. Gingrich does not have a realistic understanding of the oil exploration and production business.

    h/t aeberman:

    http://www.theoildrum.com/node…

    2. Newt is using the old trope, “if we accomplished X daunting task [win WW2, go to the moon, etc.] then surely we can do Y daunting task.”

      The problem: that argument doesn’t make any fucking sense; the fact that we did one hard thing doesn’t mean we can do a second, wholly unrelated hard thing — especially where the facts [as Sir Robin notes] show the second task to be mathematically nonsense.

      Big picture: Newt casts himself as the “ideas” man, but most of his “ideas” aren’t ideas in the thoughtful/insightful sense; they’re “ideas” like “I thought this up over my bowl of Froot Loops this morning and mumbled it to my eye-rolling wife without thinking it through.”  

    3. First, ya get a really big hose to suck up all the ocean’s water.  Then ya get an even bigger can opener to peel back the Earth’s crust.

      Finding all the hidden oil will then be easy.

        2. If the oil companies succeed in causing a collapse of world oil prices as Newt is advocating, wouldn’t that mean the oil companies would either go out of business, or we’d have to bail them out like the auto industry?

          Dang, this ain’t as simple as I thought!

            1. and the impact of the first oil embargo on the world economy.

              The only way Reagan “helped crash” the price of oil in the ’80’s was through a major recession. Lack of demand has that effect.  

              The glut began in the early 1980s as a result of slowed economic activity in industrial countries (due to the crises of the 1970s, especially in 1973 and 1979) and the energy conservation spurred by high fuel prices

              Reduced demand

              OPEC had relied on the price elasticity of demand of oil to maintain high consumption, but underestimated the extent to which other sources of supply would become profitable as prices increased. Electricity generation from nuclear power and natural gas;[20] home heating from natural gas; and ethanol blended gasoline all reduced the demand for oil. New passenger car fuel economy rose from 17 mpg in 1978 to more than 22 mpg in 1982, an increase of more than 30 percent.[21]

              G.W. Bush took care of that nasty $4/gallon spike in gas prices in 2007/2008 too with an even stronger dose of recession.

              But, I should congratulate you. You did manage to spell “history” correctly.  That’s a start.

Leave a Comment

Recent Comments


Posts about

Donald Trump
SEE MORE

Posts about

Rep. Lauren Boebert
SEE MORE

Posts about

Rep. Yadira Caraveo
SEE MORE

Posts about

Colorado House
SEE MORE

Posts about

Colorado Senate
SEE MORE

105 readers online now

Newsletter

Subscribe to our monthly newsletter to stay in the loop with regular updates!