Pelosi Threat: Newt Won't be President 'There is something I know'

[jimnyc]

You know, this witch very well may have information that would bring down Gingrich. It might very well be information obtained legally. But to be talking about this for well over a month, and now threatening that he'll never become President with the information she'll release, something doesn't sit well with me. If you know something that the public should also know about, say it. But don't play games with the "people" and the process that is our voting system. She is a complete embarrassment to our country and continually makes the SanFran area look like dopes, year after year. The only hope would be that she screws up and releases confidential info, then maybe we can finally say goodbye to her rotten old ass.

If Newt suspects what it is, he should just speak about whatever it is now.


John King, CNN: "You make your case there passionately for President Obama. But also understand that this is a tough reelection climate for any president, Democrat or Republican in this economy. Because of your history with Speaker Gingrich, what goes through your mind when you think of the possibility, which is more real today than it was a week or a month ago, that he would be the Republican nominee and that you could come back here next January or next February with a President Gingrich?"

Rep. Nancy Pelosi: "Let me just say this. That will never happen."

King: "Why?"

Pelosi: "He's not going to be President of the United States. That's not going to happen. Let me just make my prediction and stand by it, it isn't going to happen."

King: "Why are you so sure?"

Pelosi: "There is something I know. The Republicans, if they choose to nominate him that's their prerogative. I don't even think that's going to happen."

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2012/01/24/pelosi_on_a_gingrich_presidency_that_will_never_ha ppen.html

[krisy]

Wow. I would put this at about 1st grade level or lower. Grow up and speak if you got something you wanna say jack wagon! What a juvenille game!!!

[Thunderknuckles]

She's saving it up for when it matters, assuming it will matter. This also reveals that the Dems prefer to face Gingrich rather than Romney or Santorum. If they truly feared a Gingrich nomination, they would have used that card to knock him out of the race already. In any case we have to assume that Gingrich knows what she has and has already crafted a response. Personally I hope it's a strong response. I would love to see Pelosi get a smack down by Gingrich. We'll just have to wait and see.

[revelarts]

I don't think Shes got to have anything up her shelve, i think Newt is the least electable of the 4 still in the race.
Newt will Pull Like ZERO independent votes and only the party faithful will drag themselves out of bed to vote for him. Obama wins by default.
Romeny has a better Chance, though he's not bit different than Obama. Independents might want a change. and he could squeek out a win but it will be the dullest campaign and basically 4 more years of Obama.

Now I'll admit that Ron Paul has a harder roe to hoe than Romney but he could Pull many from the Left and Independents Hard.
and THE greatest thing about Ron Paul as the Republican Candidate is that it will Clearly Show off the Hypocrisy of OBAMA and FORCE the conversation on real issues and not BS political debate over HOW MUCH MORE we can grow the gov't for this or that group. and Such. It'd put blood in the water. RPs war position would make Obama look like Hitler to hard core leftist it already does. Obama would have to make socialist rationalizations for Keeping the dept of Education etc.. For keeping the Fed, for the BAIL outs, For Obama Care. RP is Against like EVERYTHING Obama has done.

He might not win but he'd Scare the living snot out of everyone on the left on the issues and I'd hope people would stop making excuses or a least admit a bit to themselves that their excuses for big gov't left or right are just that , excuses not justified by the constitution or claims of safety or helping.

It would be so AWESOME!!!

And if he won ,well game on.

[Thunderknuckles]

Wow. I would put this at about 1st grade level or lower. Grow up and speak if you got something you wanna say jack wagon! What a juvenille game!!!
It's just politics. Although I wonder why she would tip her hand for a second time so prematurely. That doesn't seem like good strategy. It gives him time to work out a response. It's like telling Gingrich you're gonna stab him on Friday and he shows up at your front door on Thursday with a bazooka :p

[gabosaurus]

I know exactly what she has up her sleeve. It's not pretty and certainly not in the interest of fairness. But it would derail any hopes Newt would have.

[Thunderknuckles]

I know exactly what she has up her sleeve. It's not pretty and certainly not in the interest of fairness. But it would derail any hopes Newt would have.
I'll play along and say you're a Washington insider with this knowledge. If you say that it is not pretty and not in the interest of fairness, I'd think twice. If Newt's latest surge is any indication, the American people really don't like clearly underhanded politics.

[gabosaurus]

This is not Pelosi's primary weapon, but she and Newt have been in agreement in the past on a primary plank in immigration reform known as "Uno Grande America."
You figure that one out.

[krisy]

It's just politics. Although I wonder why she would tip her hand for a second time so prematurely. That doesn't seem like good strategy. It gives him time to work out a response. It's like telling Gingrich you're gonna stab him on Friday and he shows up at your front door on Thursday with a bazooka :p


good point. Anyone have a guess as to what it is?

[chloe]

I think it will be Romney.

[logroller]

Pelosi coming out against Newt...many would construe that as an endorsement. :coffee:

[jimnyc]

I love it - Newt's response is to call her "hysterical", and further tells her to put up or shut up!!


Mr Gingrich challenged Mrs. Pelosi to “put up or shut up.”

“I have no idea what she’s talking about, I don’t think she has any idea what she’s talking about. But bring it on,” the GOP presidential front-runner told hosts John McCaslin and Dana Mills. “When you’re a left-wing Democrat, the prospect of a Gingrich presidency is really sort of like a nightmare. And they’re right. My goal is to go to Washington to change it, not just to get along with the old order.”

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/jan/25/gingrich-pelosi-comments-hysterical/

[ConHog]

If I were ever to campaign for voter exams my signs would be simple

writeen in big letters across the top

"Why we need voter exams"

followed by a picture of Nancy Pelosi.

[Gaffer]

I don't think Shes got to have anything up her shelve, i think Newt is the least electable of the 4 still in the race.
Newt will Pull Like ZERO independent votes and only the party faithful will drag themselves out of bed to vote for him. Obama wins by default.
Romeny has a better Chance, though he's not bit different than Obama. Independents might want a change. and he could squeek out a win but it will be the dullest campaign and basically 4 more years of Obama.

Now I'll admit that Ron Paul has a harder roe to hoe than Romney but he could Pull many from the Left and Independents Hard.
and THE greatest thing about Ron Paul as the Republican Candidate is that it will Clearly Show off the Hypocrisy of OBAMA and FORCE the conversation on real issues and not BS political debate over HOW MUCH MORE we can grow the gov't for this or that group. and Such. It'd put blood in the water. RPs war position would make Obama look like Hitler to hard core leftist it already does. Obama would have to make socialist rationalizations for Keeping the dept of Education etc.. For keeping the Fed, for the BAIL outs, For Obama Care. RP is Against like EVERYTHING Obama has done.

He might not win but he'd Scare the living snot out of everyone on the left on the issues and I'd hope people would stop making excuses or a least admit a bit to themselves that their excuses for big gov't left or right are just that , excuses not justified by the constitution or claims of safety or helping.

It would be so AWESOME!!!

And if he won ,well game on.

Wrong again Rev. No leftie is ever going to vote for Paul under any circumstance. And independents will vote for anyone running against zero.

I think the wicked witch of the west is just spouting silly threats and has nothing. Saber rattling so to speak.

[ConHog]

Wrong again Rev. No leftie is ever going to vote for Paul under any circumstance. And independents will vote for anyone running against zero.

I think the wicked witch of the west is just spouting silly threats and has nothing. Saber rattling so to speak.

I expect her to announce anyday

"you will have to nominate Gingrich to know what's in the threat.

[revelarts]

....A rowdy pack of ever dedicated supporters makes its presence known at most of Ron Paul’s campaign events in Iowa. But beyond those who show up already wearing “I voted for Ron Paul” T-shirts, there are those who are more curious than diehard. Many of them are Democrats and independents — recent polling (http://swampland.time.com/2011/12/27/ron-pauls-novel-coalition-faces-its-major-moment-in-iowa/) suggests that as much as half of Paul’s support in the state is coming from non-Republicans. And when asked what has piqued their interest, these non-Republicans sometimes cite the same reasons as conservatives: Paul is a straight shooter; he values the Constitution; he’s consistent. But there are also parts of the Texas Congressman’s philosophy that uniquely cater to those outside the GOP, even if inadvertently. Here are six reasons Dems and indies are staking out space in Paul’s tent....A Hands-Off Approach to Personal Matters, Noninterventionism, The Golden Rule,
Drug Legalization, He Doesn’t Blame Obama, While candidates ... call for the repeal of ObamaCare, Paul also calls for the repeal of the Patriot Act. ...




Read more: http://swampland.time.com/2011/12/30/why-ron-paul-has-appeal-beyond-the-gop/#ixzz1kUucUPRL





..In a head to head match up with incumbent President Barack Obama, the indie voter chooses Ron Paul, a CBS News poll suggested on Monday.
A total of 47% of independent voters said they would choose Ron Paul compared to 45% of independent voters choosing Mitt Romney against Obama, and 41% of independents saying they would choose Rick Santorum. If a Paul-Obama showdown were ever to take place, 47% of independent voters would vote for Paul, 81% republicans and 10% Democrats for a total of 45% of the vote. Obama would get just 40% of the independent vote in that contest, with 85% of the Democrats choosing Obama and 9% of Republicans choosing the President on election day in November. Obama would win the general election by a narrow one point margin if the election was held today between the two...



http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/president_obama_vs_republican_candidates.html

Data collected from Real Clear Politics (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/us/republican_presidential_nomination-1452.html) demonstrates Paul’s steady rise in the polls from 2009 through 2011. By December 2011 there is a steep increase in support for Paul, likely as Iowa caucus polls (http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/2011/PPP_Release_IA_101914.pdf)showed him coming in first. Although Paul was a few percentage points shy of winning the Iowa caucus (http://www.cnn.com/election/2012/primaries/state/ia) on Jan 2, Americans have begun to view Paul as an electable candidate....

"The same is true in New Hampshire. A poll released Monday by the Boston Globe and the University of New Hampshire shows Paul leading among Democrats and independents.."
boston Globe

[ConHog]

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/president_obama_vs_republican_candidates.html

Data collected from Real Clear Politics (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/us/republican_presidential_nomination-1452.html) demonstrates Paul’s steady rise in the polls from 2009 through 2011. By December 2011 there is a steep increase in support for Paul, likely as Iowa caucus polls (http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/2011/PPP_Release_IA_101914.pdf)showed him coming in first. Although Paul was a few percentage points shy of winning the Iowa caucus (http://www.cnn.com/election/2012/primaries/state/ia) on Jan 2, Americans have begun to view Paul as an electable candidate....

What the hell does Ron Paul have to do with this thread? Unless he's also telling Pelosi to put up or shut up.

[jimnyc]

What the hell does Ron Paul have to do with this thread? Unless he's also telling Pelosi to put up or shut up.

He's a "Paulbot", nuff said.

But back to the topic, yeah, I'm thinking Pelosi is trying to scare potential Gingrich voters and claiming she'll only release what she knows after the nomination. I think it only shows that her and her ilk are afraid of Gingrich.

[jimnyc]

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/president_obama_vs_republican_candidates.html

Data collected from Real Clear Politics (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/us/republican_presidential_nomination-1452.html) demonstrates Paul’s steady rise in the polls from 2009 through 2011. By December 2011 there is a steep increase in support for Paul, likely as Iowa caucus polls (http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/2011/PPP_Release_IA_101914.pdf)showed him coming in first. Although Paul was a few percentage points shy of winning the Iowa caucus (http://www.cnn.com/election/2012/primaries/state/ia) on Jan 2, Americans have begun to view Paul as an electable candidate....

"The same is true in New Hampshire. A poll released Monday by the Boston Globe and the University of New Hampshire shows Paul leading among Democrats and independents.."
boston Globe

:lol::lol::lol: :laugh2::laugh2::laugh2:

He's done, get over it. Start working towards 2016. LOL

[gabosaurus]

What the hell does Ron Paul have to do with this thread? Unless he's also telling Pelosi to put up or shut up.

I don't understand what Ron Paul has to do with anything. He is so out of touch with mainstream America, he might as well be a space alien.

[revelarts]

Wrong again Rev. No leftie is ever going to vote for Paul under any circumstance. And independents will vote for anyone running against zero.

I think the wicked witch of the west is just spouting silly threats and has nothing. Saber rattling so to speak.


What the hell does Ron Paul have to do with this thread? Unless he's also telling Pelosi to put up or shut up.
Read Gaffer post and you'll understand "What the hell does Ron Paul have to do with this thread".
Easy enough.




I don't understand what Ron Paul has to do with anything. He is so out of touch with mainstream America, he might as well be a space alien.
So you want more wars from Obama too Gab? Or do you prefer them from Republicans so you can protest?
He's gotten 3rd and 2nd in to races sofar and is walking away with delegates from every race. Maybe your the one out of touch Gab? Or maybe only space aliens are voting ethier way, get used to the new mainstream.

[jimnyc]

He's gotten 3rd and 2nd in to races sofar and is walking away with delegates from every race. Maybe your the one out of touch Gab? Or maybe only space aliens are voting ethier way, get used to the new mainstream.

He finished 4th in SC, with only 13% of the vote, about 175,000 votes behind the leader. He was demolished.

And according to the NY Times, he received 3 delegates from one of the races, and now has 3 delegates total, in a distant last place of current runners. I guess it pays to know what you're talking about.

http://elections.nytimes.com/2012/primaries/delegates

and here

http://www.cbsnews.com/primary-election-results-2012/scorecard.shtml?party=R

[revelarts]

He finished 4th in SC, with only 13% of the vote, about 175,000 votes behind the leader. He was demolished.

And according to the NY Times, he received 3 delegates from one of the races, and now has 3 delegates total, in a distant last place of current runners. I guess it pays to know what you're talking about.

http://elections.nytimes.com/2012/primaries/delegates

and here

http://www.cbsnews.com/primary-election-results-2012/scorecard.shtml?party=R

Did Ron Paul Lose Iowa Delegates? (http://www.infowars.com/did-ron-paul-lose-iowa-delegates/)


<tbody>
http://www.infowars.com/wp-content/plugins/wp-print/images/printer_famfamfam.gif (http://www.infowars.com/did-ron-paul-lose-iowa-delegates/print/)
http://static.infowars.com/2010/templateimages/youtube.png (http://www.youtube.com/user/TheAlexJonesChannel)
http://static.infowars.com/2010/templateimages/podcast.png (http://xml.nfowars.net/Alex.rss)
http://static.infowars.com/2010/templateimages/pptv.png (http://prisonplanet.tv/)
http://static.infowars.com/2010/templateimages/twitter.png (http://twitter.com/realalexjones)
http://static.infowars.com/2010/templateimages/facebook.png (http://www.facebook.com/AlexanderEmerickJones)
http://static.infowars.com/2010/templateimages/cart.png (http://www.infowarsshop.com/)

</tbody>


Kurt Nimmo
Infowars.com
January 23, 2012

In its zeal to strip Ron Paul of all legitimacy in the run-up to the GOP nomination this summer, the establishment media has tripped over itself again.
In regard to crucial delegates, CNN and CBS are reporting wildly divergent numbers following the South Carolina primary.
According to CNN (http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2012/primaries.html) today, Ron Paul so far has a total of 10 delegates. However, if we are to believe CBS (http://www.cbsnews.com/primary-election-results-2012/scorecard.shtml?party=R), he only has three.
http://static.infowars.com/2012/01/i/article-images/delegates1.jpg
http://static.infowars.com/2012/01/i/article-images/delegates2.jpg
Paul’s delegate count (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/huff-wires/20120111/us-gop-campaign-delegates/) was reported on January 11 as three. On January 19, however, the Republican establishment recalculated the Iowa caucus vote count and said that Paul had not gained a single delegate (http://elections.nytimes.com/2012/primaries/states/iowa) – in essence stripping him. It counted the initial vote in secret (http://www.infowars.com/tonights-iowa-vote-count-to-take-place-at-secret-location/).
This sleight of hand was almost completely ignored by the corporate media. It was like a scene out of Orwell’s 1984 where the state suddenly revises history.
“And if all others accepted the lie which the party imposed – if all records told the same tale – then the lie passed into history and became the truth,” Orwell wrote.
It looks like the records published by CNN and CBS are not telling the same tale. In the future, they should probably compare notes.

[ConHog]

Did Ron Paul Lose Iowa Delegates? (http://www.infowars.com/did-ron-paul-lose-iowa-delegates/)


<tbody>
http://www.infowars.com/wp-content/plugins/wp-print/images/printer_famfamfam.gif (http://www.infowars.com/did-ron-paul-lose-iowa-delegates/print/)
http://static.infowars.com/2010/templateimages/youtube.png (http://www.youtube.com/user/TheAlexJonesChannel)
http://static.infowars.com/2010/templateimages/podcast.png (http://xml.nfowars.net/Alex.rss)
http://static.infowars.com/2010/templateimages/pptv.png (http://prisonplanet.tv/)
http://static.infowars.com/2010/templateimages/twitter.png (http://twitter.com/realalexjones)
http://static.infowars.com/2010/templateimages/facebook.png (http://www.facebook.com/AlexanderEmerickJones)
http://static.infowars.com/2010/templateimages/cart.png (http://www.infowarsshop.com/)

</tbody>


Kurt Nimmo
Infowars.com
January 23, 2012

In its zeal to strip Ron Paul of all legitimacy in the run-up to the GOP nomination this summer, the establishment media has tripped over itself again.
In regard to crucial delegates, CNN and CBS are reporting wildly divergent numbers following the South Carolina primary.
According to CNN (http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2012/primaries.html) today, Ron Paul so far has a total of 10 delegates. However, if we are to believe CBS (http://www.cbsnews.com/primary-election-results-2012/scorecard.shtml?party=R), he only has three.
http://static.infowars.com/2012/01/i/article-images/delegates1.jpg
http://static.infowars.com/2012/01/i/article-images/delegates2.jpg
Paul’s delegate count (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/huff-wires/20120111/us-gop-campaign-delegates/) was reported on January 11 as three. On January 19, however, the Republican establishment recalculated the Iowa caucus vote count and said that Paul had not gained a single delegate (http://elections.nytimes.com/2012/primaries/states/iowa) – in essence stripping him. It counted the initial vote in secret (http://www.infowars.com/tonights-iowa-vote-count-to-take-place-at-secret-location/).
This sleight of hand was almost completely ignored by the corporate media. It was like a scene out of Orwell’s 1984 where the state suddenly revises history.
“And if all others accepted the lie which the party imposed – if all records told the same tale – then the lie passed into history and became the truth,” Orwell wrote.
It looks like the records published by CNN and CBS are not telling the same tale. In the future, they should probably compare notes.

WHO CARES??? Has NOTHING to do with THIS thread .

[jimnyc]

3 or 10 delegates, wouldn't and doesn't make a difference. And your link confirms what I said, that he got delegates in one race, not every race as you stated earlier. Again, he's done, and was before he started.

[revelarts]

Jim cares? He really does. He's very concerned about Ron Paul.
did i mention how great Ron Paul is.
:poke:

:laugh:

[ConHog]

Jim cares? He really does. He's very concerned about Ron Paul.
did i mention how great Ron Paul is.
:poke:

:laugh:

Sure Jim cares, about yanking your chain...:laugh:

[jimnyc]

Jim cares? He really does. He's very concerned about Ron Paul.
did i mention how great Ron Paul is.
:poke:

:laugh:

Even the man you spank it to nightly knows that the delegate count is at 3, but you're off on yet another conspiracy as usual. Try some research and tell me what you learn, as opposed to what your kooky sites tell you. His count is currently at 3 and there is no conspiracy.

[jimnyc]

Btw, for anyone else reading this, just dismiss the conspiracy. CNN is prematurely counting all the delegates from Iowa, handing an additional 7 delegates to Ron Paul. These delegates have not officially been handed out yet. This is the actual process it's supposed to take, but of course the Ron Paul kooks make it seem like the fix is in and he was robbed!!

Here's a snippet of the actual process for Iowa:


The Iowa Republican caucus is the first part in a multi-step process to elect the state's 25 pledged delegates to the 2012 Republican National Convention. The January 3 caucuses (precinct caucuses) elects delegates to county conventions. These county conventions, in turn, elect delegates to the four congressional-district conventions on March 10, who elect three national delegates each. Each congressional-district conventions also appoint two members to a "slate committee" which chooses 13 additional delegates. These 13 delegates are voted on at the Republican Party of Iowa state convention on June 18. Notably, even the 25 pledged delegates are not bound to support any candidate at the national convention. Unlike the majority of states, Iowa RNC delegates are free to vote for any candidate for president or vice president.

According to the Associated Press, the Iowa Republican system "puts a premium on getting the most votes in individual congressional districts. If a candidate's supporters can control a congressional district convention, they can choose national delegates and slate committee members who support their candidate."A January 4 AP analysis projected that Romney and Santorum, who each won two of Iowa's congressional districts, would win 13 and 12 delegates, respectively, assuming there are no changes in their support as the campaign continues. Although Paul ran a close third in the voting, he "was shut out of delegates because he didn't win any of Iowa's four congressional districts."

Chris Good of ABC News noted: "All this will be moot if a front-runner sprints ahead of his competition in the next two months. But we'll have to revisit the Iowa outcome, in a delegate-counting context, if the GOP race progresses into a dragged-out trench war."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iowa_Republican_caucuses,_2012#Selection_of_delega tes

[PostmodernProphet]

I don't think Shes got to have anything up her shelve, i think Newt is the least electable of the 4 still in the race.
Newt will Pull Like ZERO independent votes and only the party faithful will drag themselves out of bed to vote for him. Obama wins by default.
Romeny has a better Chance, though he's not bit different than Obama. Independents might want a change. and he could squeek out a win but it will be the dullest campaign and basically 4 more years of Obama.

Now I'll admit that Ron Paul has a harder roe to hoe than Romney but he could Pull many from the Left and Independents Hard.
and THE greatest thing about Ron Paul as the Republican Candidate is that it will Clearly Show off the Hypocrisy of OBAMA and FORCE the conversation on real issues and not BS political debate over HOW MUCH MORE we can grow the gov't for this or that group. and Such. It'd put blood in the water. RPs war position would make Obama look like Hitler to hard core leftist it already does. Obama would have to make socialist rationalizations for Keeping the dept of Education etc.. For keeping the Fed, for the BAIL outs, For Obama Care. RP is Against like EVERYTHING Obama has done.

He might not win but he'd Scare the living snot out of everyone on the left on the issues and I'd hope people would stop making excuses or a least admit a bit to themselves that their excuses for big gov't left or right are just that , excuses not justified by the constitution or claims of safety or helping.

It would be so AWESOME!!!

And if he won ,well game on.

I think the only way I could support Paul would be if he would sign an irrevocable committment to leave foreign policy up to someone who knew something about it......

[PostmodernProphet]

I know exactly what she has up her sleeve. It's not pretty and certainly not in the interest of fairness. But it would derail any hopes Newt would have.

if she knew something that could derail Newt she would have published it last year.....

[Thunderknuckles]

Update.
According to a new article on CNN, we have finally found out what Nancy has on Newt:
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2012/01/26/pelosi-instinct-says-gingrich-wont-be-president/

"
Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi Thursday dismissed the idea she knows something secret about former House Speaker Newt Gingrich that would disqualify him from being president, saying it's just her "instinct" - based on the public record."



There you have it folks. Instinct is Nancy's ace in the hole.

P.S. Is this the same instinct that helped her make those timely and profitable Wall Street investments? Newt may be in trouble after all :p