Newt at the Watering Hole

[Guest]

We were discussing at "the watering hole" the recent South Carolina debate when Newt "took on" the moderator who asked the first question concerning the former wife's comments about Newt wanting an "open marriage" while she had MS.

Newt, as you remember, acted so indignant that this topic would even come up when there are so many national topics to be discussed.

The talk at the "watering hole" was that Newt was such a fast thinker to come up with his answer and to quickly put that moderator in his place.

Reality is different. All the participants have gone through rehersals with their staff so many times that it is all memorized. They know all the possible questions and the staff has prepped the candidate in how to answer, how to act, and exactly what to say. Newt knew the question would arise and knew just how to act so puffed up and indignant.

Newt is a Washington insider who knows the ins and outs of political acting. Don't forget he was Speaker of the House - until his own party threw him out.

[Guest]

We were discussing at "the watering hole" the recent South Carolina debate when Newt "took on" the moderator who asked the first question concerning the former wife's comments about Newt wanting an "open marriage" while she had MS.

Newt, as you remember, acted so indignant that this topic would even come up when there are so many national topics to be discussed.

The talk at the "watering hole" was that Newt was such a fast thinker to come up with his answer and to quickly put that moderator in his place.

Reality is different. All the participants have gone through rehersals with their staff so many times that it is all memorized. They know all the possible questions and the staff has prepped the candidate in how to answer, how to act, and exactly what to say. Newt knew the question would arise and knew just how to act so puffed up and indignant.

Newt is a Washington insider who knows the ins and outs of political acting. Don't forget he was Speaker of the House - until his own party threw him out.

Exactly; I made that point last week. Wife #2 had been on the news all that day, and he knew it would be brought up and was prepared with all the scripted righteous indignation he could muster. I would submit he actually was happy it came up first so he could shift the focus from his own issues to the media. The far right ate that up as they have been conditioned for years to not listen to the "left wing media", so that they can claim their missteps are part of a plot to bring them down. It's actually a brilliant strategy, though it is just a strategy.

[Guest]

We were discussing at "the watering hole" the recent South Carolina debate when Newt "took on" the moderator who asked the first question concerning the former wife's comments about Newt wanting an "open marriage" while she had MS.

Newt, as you remember, acted so indignant that this topic would even come up when there are so many national topics to be discussed.

The talk at the "watering hole" was that Newt was such a fast thinker to come up with his answer and to quickly put that moderator in his place.

Reality is different. All the participants have gone through rehersals with their staff so many times that it is all memorized. They know all the possible questions and the staff has prepped the candidate in how to answer, how to act, and exactly what to say. Newt knew the question would arise and knew just how to act so puffed up and indignant.

Newt is a Washington insider who knows the ins and outs of political acting. Don't forget he was Speaker of the House - until his own party threw him out.

And your point is...............................????

[Guest]

Eweissenbach got the point just perfectly. Very easy to understand.

[Guest]

We were discussing at "the watering hole" the recent South Carolina debate when Newt "took on" the moderator who asked the first question concerning the former wife's comments about Newt wanting an "open marriage" while she had MS.

Newt, as you remember, acted so indignant that this topic would even come up when there are so many national topics to be discussed.

The talk at the "watering hole" was that Newt was such a fast thinker to come up with his answer and to quickly put that moderator in his place.

Reality is different. All the participants have gone through rehersals with their staff so many times that it is all memorized. They know all the possible questions and the staff has prepped the candidate in how to answer, how to act, and exactly what to say. Newt knew the question would arise and knew just how to act so puffed up and indignant.

Newt is a Washington insider who knows the ins and outs of political acting. Don't forget he was Speaker of the House - until his own party threw him out.

buggyone: You mean like "off the cuff" Obama. The liberal media's attempt to enrage voters over Newt's second wife's commented did not resonate because a good portion of voters have been married more than once and perhaps several times and understand the animosity a divorce brings with it. They understand the term "scorned woman" and voters have as low an opinion of the news medias as they do congress.

Having said that as much as I hate to admit it (I've been with the same woman since 13) fidelity in one's personal appear not to be a factor contributing to leadership WitnessCharles lindbergh, George Patton Bill clinton JFK and Dwight Eisenhower. Converseley we have Omar Bradley, and Jimmy (lust in my heart) Carter. did the latter two lead anymore effectively owing to their fidelity???

I voted early Saturday morning holding my nose because neither party offers a candidate of quality. As a former HRD guy you understand picking the best from a bad lot. Where have all the good men gone?

So for me this race is guessing who is more likely to take bold initiatives to reset America. I studied the field and gave it my best guess Saturday.

What I do recognize is that Democrats and Republicans must be united in an effort to reset the three branches of government to ensure they abide by the US Constitution . There was a time when that was so but not the parties are too polarized for the country's own good.

[Guest]

buggyone: You mean like "off the cuff" Obama. The liberal media's attempt to enrage voters over Newt's second wife's commented did not resonate because a good portion of voters have been married more than once and perhaps several times and understand the animosity a divorce brings with it. They understand the term "scorned woman" and voters have as low an opinion of the news medias as they do congress.

Having said that as much as I hate to admit it (I've been with the same woman since 13) fidelity in one's personal appear not to be a factor contributing to leadership WitnessCharles lindbergh, George Patton Bill clinton JFK and Dwight Eisenhower. Converseley we have Omar Bradley, and Jimmy (lust in my heart) Carter. did the latter two lead anymore effectively owing to their fidelity???

I voted early Saturday morning holding my nose because neither party offers a candidate of quality. As a former HRD guy you understand picking the best from a bad lot. Where have all the good men gone?

So for me this race is guessing who is more likely to take bold initiatives to reset America. I studied the field and gave it my best guess Saturday.

What I do recognize is that Democrats and Republicans must be united in an effort to reset the three branches of government to ensure they abide by the US Constitution . There was a time when that was so but not the parties are too polarized for the country's own good.

Edited remarks in the second paragraph second line that is suppose to say I'm about as ood with a keyboard as i am with a golf club;)

[Guest]

why would anybody even consider him as a candidate? His party threw him out of one of the most powerful political jobs in the 535. He departed with disgrace.
He is a known entity...a pure bred political animal that knows exactly why things work the way they do in Washington. And as an insider his comfort zone can only be the business as usual mode of politics.

Has he seen the light? The error of his ways? I would seriously doubt that.
Should he be given a chance to show us?

ABSOLUTELY NOT!!!

There is only one realistic choice in the current line up.

btk

[Guest]

Well, Rubicon, just a couple of comments.

I was not comparing Newt to anyone in his puffery. I stated that all the candidates were prepped through mock debates with their staff so they all had rehearsed answers and actions. It was not quick thinking and off-the-cuff remarks by Newt but very well rehearsed answers and action.

As far as those people you mentioned that had affairs, how many had affairs when their first wife was recovering from uterine cancer surgery and followed that up with another affair when wife #2 had MS and could not perform to his satisfaction?

Glad you have been with your wife since age 13 - although that sounds very young to get married. Well, Jerry Lee Lewis did it, too. Just kidding, Rubicon, I know what you meant.

[Guest]

why would anybody even consider him as a candidate? His party threw him out of one of the most powerful political jobs in the 535. He departed with disgrace.
He is a known entity...a pure bred political animal that knows exactly why things work the way they do in Washington. And as an insider his comfort zone can only be the business as usual mode of politics.

Has he seen the light? The error of his ways? I would seriously doubt that.
Should he be given a chance to show us?

ABSOLUTELY NOT!!!

There is only one realistic choice in the current line up.

btk

And, wife #3 stands beside him smiling broadly as he talks of ethics and leadership, knowing she carried on a months long affair with him before he even allegedly asked wife #2 for an "open marriage". He is a paragon of virtue, without even mentioning the ethical issues he was censured for or his dealings with freddie mac after leaving the house in disgrace.

[Guest]

Well, Rubicon, just a couple of comments.

I was not comparing Newt to anyone in his puffery. I stated that all the candidates were prepped through mock debates with their staff so they all had rehearsed answers and actions. It was not quick thinking and off-the-cuff remarks by Newt but very well rehearsed answers and action.

As far as those people you mentioned that had affairs, how many had affairs when their first wife was recovering from uterine cancer surgery and followed that up with another affair when wife #2 had MS and could not perform to his satisfaction?

Glad you have been with your wife since age 13 - although that sounds very young to get married. Well, Jerry Lee Lewis did it, too. Just kidding, Rubicon, I know what you meant.

buggyone: No No you were right the first time we were married at 13. We invited people all over the hallow. Had opposum on the grille, sweet tatters
corn bread, dove breast with squirrel gravy and mamma's pecan pie. Uncle Jed supply us with his best two day old burbon.

Just kidding on the opposum. We couldn't catch any that day.

[Guest]

And, wife #3 stands beside him smiling broadly as he talks of ethics and leadership, knowing she carried on a months long affair with him before he even allegedly asked wife #2 for an "open marriage". He is a paragon of virtue, without even mentioning the ethical issues he was censured for or his dealings with freddie mac after leaving the house in disgrace.

Newt and Callista carried on a seven year affair: 1993 until 2000.

[Guest]

Newt and Callista carried on a seven year affair: 1993 until 2000.

As Zig Ziglar once said, "If you beleive infidelity is okay I would be glad to debate that point with you on television in your home town".

[Guest]

As Zig Ziglar once said, "If you beleive infidelity is okay I would be glad to debate that point with you on television in your home town".

I heard a speech by him once.....he was great.

[Guest]

And your point is...............................????

The point is that Newtie is a hypocritical lying scumbug. And yes, I know you can name a bunch of dems who are also hyporitical lying scumbugs. However, your question was what is your point about Newtie.

[Guest]

Well the swing through Florida is going to be a real eye opener for Republican voters.

Romney just released his tax returns and paid an effective 13.9% on 21 million. I know I know its investment income. but voters are going to want answers about the 190 to 250 million he made at Bain, more specifically how. they are also going to watch his reactions to claims made against he and Scott and again specifically his responses.

Bottom line is that it does matter what the truth is but Romney may have too many problems to survive. He can't and won't repeal ObamaCare because he won't admit romneyCare was a failed initiative. He is the poster child for Obama's attack on the greedy 1%. He is robotic in his responses which leaves people with the impression that he is insincere,

His record in MA clearly establishes that he acted more as a liberal to moderate democrat than a conservative republican.

Contrast that Newt has bold initiatives. His response to Obama. The pertient question is will it be enough?

Its not important that individuals including me are right in predicitng whom will be the republican candidate. It is important that it was right because the stakes are as high as they have ever been

[Guest]

These are all good points. Having Gingrich as the nominee will ensure a dem win. We might be able to stomach Romney....but Newtie. No way. I sure don't want someone like him anywhere need the red button.....



Well the swing through Florida is going to be a real eye opener for Republican voters.

Romney just released his tax returns and paid an effective 13.9% on 21 million. I know I know its investment income. but voters are going to want answers about the 190 to 250 million he made at Bain, more specifically how. they are also going to watch his reactions to claims made against he and Scott and again specifically his responses.

Bottom line is that it does matter what the truth is but Romney may have too many problems to survive. He can't and won't repeal ObamaCare because he won't admit romneyCare was a failed initiative. He is the poster child for Obama's attack on the greedy 1%. He is robotic in his responses which leaves people with the impression that he is insincere,

His record in MA clearly establishes that he acted more as a liberal to moderate democrat than a conservative republican.

Contrast that Newt has bold initiatives. His response to Obama. The pertient question is will it be enough?

Its not important that individuals including me are right in predicitng whom will be the republican candidate. It is important that it was right because the stakes are as high as they have ever been

[Guest]

Well the swing through Florida is going to be a real eye opener for Republican voters.

Romney just released his tax returns and paid an effective 13.9% on 21 million. I know I know its investment income. but voters are going to want answers about the 190 to 250 million he made at Bain, more specifically how. they are also going to watch his reactions to claims made against he and Scott and again specifically his responses.

Bottom line is that it does matter what the truth is but Romney may have too many problems to survive. He can't and won't repeal ObamaCare because he won't admit romneyCare was a failed initiative. He is the poster child for Obama's attack on the greedy 1%. He is robotic in his responses which leaves people with the impression that he is insincere,

His record in MA clearly establishes that he acted more as a liberal to moderate democrat than a conservative republican.

Contrast that Newt has bold initiatives. His response to Obama. The pertient question is will it be enough?

Its not important that individuals including me are right in predicitng whom will be the republican candidate. It is important that it was right because the stakes are as high as they have ever been

Good post, but to the point that he won't repeal the healthcare law, he has SAID that he would and could because he believes each state should decide independently, what kind of healthcare initiatives they want. That gets him off the hook for repudiating the healthcare intitiatives he put in place in Mass. Now, can he, or any of the candidates be trusted to do what they say? There is the trillion dollar question (used to be million but inflation has made that chicken-feed).

[Guest]

I just don't accept that because a clean candidate who happens to be wealthy can be overlooked because of his wealth and taxes and how much he earned however he earned it....legally for Gingrich. That to me is stooping over a dollar to pick up a crusty/rusty penny.

Why is it we do not care how all the other millionaires in Washington made their money? Or how much the paid or didn't pay? Absolutely ridiculous reasoning. It reflects exactly what the media is hyping....with no intelligence involved what so ever.

If the same microscope was turned on the rest of Washington not many would pass the test.

And unfortunately Romney will not get a free pass or supression of negatives like Obama did and continues to have.

How about Romney brings to the party what no other candidate does including and especially Obama? Romney understands what running a business involves...revenue...costs...budgeting...accountab ility...responsibility,,,income statements and balance sheets. Business basics that are non existent in Washington.

Romney is the only candidate capable of doing for this country what he has aptly shown he can do for other businesses and himself. The other candidates and Obama? Politicians conducting business as usual.

Romney hands down for those who want to be a part of starting a very long process of healing the ills of this country.

btk

[Guest]

He didn't want to release his tax returns and now we know why. The tax rate of 13.9% pretty bad as compare to the middleclass. But there is only one reason for having a Swiss back account.

And we all know what that is.....

[Guest]

He didn't want to release his tax returns and now we know why. The tax rate of 13.9% pretty bad as compare to the middleclass. But there is only one reason for having a Swiss back account.

And we all know what that is.....

That reflects a 15% long term capital gains rate less a few deductions. Newt has proposed a 0% capital gains rate, which would result in Mitt and folks like him paying no income taxes.

[Guest]

The middle class and other working people pay taxes on wages earned. Wages earned is only one source of income. Middle class and others who have their nest eggs invested do not pay the same rate of taxation on their investment earnings as they do on wages earned.

Romney like anybody who does not work for wages earned pay the going tax rate for the various investment schemes available to all folks.

Romney like all the others in his tier of income do pay a very hefty tax bill as Romney has done.

The media and mud slingers will not attempt to clarify for we the people the differences in tax rates. They will continue to play on the uninformed and those who only parrot what the media peddles.

I guess some would say do the math...35% on $50-75,000 or 15% on multi millions. And the fair share is what?

More power to those who earned it and pay their taxes. If we would recall there were and are several in the current administration guilty of evading/not paying. These are the folks who are making sure we the people do what is required...perfect role models for go ahead and see if you can get away with it.

DOn't we all go through preparing our taxes each year doing our best to see what we can qualify for to not have to pay any more than we have to....millionaires do exactly the same. It starts with looking in the mirror and not casting a stone at others.

btk

[Guest]

As Zig Ziglar once said, "If you beleive infidelity is okay I would be glad to debate that point with you on television in your home town".

In all due respect given the state of affairs (pun intended) concerning marriage today, the higher divorce percentage and boys and girls misbehaving being the new norm do you really believe that ziggy's axiom still holds.

Just saying

[Guest]

Romney is withholding a substantial portion of his portfolio. Like Obama secretiveness it draws questions as to why???

I am sorry elitist annoy me and Romney is an elitist. Elitist like Romney, CEO's, etc are the black mark on capitalism. Some will say well, "its a risk reward system" but the problem with that scenario is these guys know how to transfer risk to others and yet reap all the rewards.

Where is Romney hiding his money? Just watch you comes to his aid

[Guest]

In all due respect given the state of affairs (pun intended) concerning marriage today, the higher divorce percentage and boys and girls misbehaving being the new norm do you really believe that ziggy's axiom still holds.

Just saying

He was good that day but I saw him maybe 20 years ago.

[Guest]

The middle class and other working people pay taxes on wages earned. Wages earned is only one source of income. Middle class and others who have their nest eggs invested do not pay the same rate of taxation on their investment earnings as they do on wages earned.

Romney like anybody who does not work for wages earned pay the going tax rate for the various investment schemes available to all folks.

Romney like all the others in his tier of income do pay a very hefty tax bill as Romney has done.

The media and mud slingers will not attempt to clarify for we the people the differences in tax rates. They will continue to play on the uninformed and those who only parrot what the media peddles.

I guess some would say do the math...35% on $50-75,000 or 15% on multi millions. And the fair share is what?

More power to those who earned it and pay their taxes. If we would recall there were and are several in the current administration guilty of evading/not paying. These are the folks who are making sure we the people do what is required...perfect role models for go ahead and see if you can get away with it.

DOn't we all go through preparing our taxes each year doing our best to see what we can qualify for to not have to pay any more than we have to....millionaires do exactly the same. It starts with looking in the mirror and not casting a stone at others.

btk

This just points out that the tax code is broken there are to many set asides, loop hole, tax havens etc. I personally pay about 5% more of a rate than Romney.

I kinda favor the flat tax....everybody pays the same rate.

[Guest]

In all due respect given the state of affairs (pun intended) concerning marriage today, the higher divorce percentage and boys and girls misbehaving being the new norm do you really believe that ziggy's axiom still holds.

Just saying

I do, absolutely. Despite the different cultural mores of the day, it is still my opinion that adultery is a sin. I believe all major religions still preach that it is sinful. By the way, Zig is in bad shape, my daughter went to see him last year and was very disappointed as his daughter mostly talked for him as he sat on the stage. My daughter had grown up listening to my Ziglar tapes and was really looking forward to seeing him in person. I saw him, in person, five times in the 80s and 90s and he was by far the best speaker I have ever seen. I probably had 20-30 of his tapes that I played on road trips.

zig ziglar - Bing Videos (http://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=zig+ziglar&mid=4477AFB3F897A447332A4477AFB3F897A447332A&view=detail&FORM=VIRE6)

[Guest]

This just points out that the tax code is broken there are to many set asides, loop hole, tax havens etc. I personally pay about 5% more of a rate than Romney.

I kinda favor the flat tax....everybody pays the same rate.

A fair tax appears fairer and uncomplicated. However, when has what a politician/government official said actually been what they represented?
Never. Clearly the tax system awards only those who can afford to research the loop holes and/or have access to places were you can hide money. Or you represent that 45% portion who don't pay any taxes. No matter what tax system is in place middle america will pay and pay and pay relative to their income/investments

[Guest]

I keep forgetting to mention that the claim of I am a successful businessman and will get this economy growing and jobs,.....by Romney does hold water.
It doesn't hold water unfortunately because the government is not a business and doesn't rum like one. So a presidents needs to know how to get head strong congressmen and women to work with him. good luck with that

[Guest]

Eweissenbach got the point just perfectly. Very easy to understand.

Sorry....still dont get the point. Can you name ONE...just ONE single debate primaries that there is not that kind of preparation...it is standard fair and my question was because I just assumed that everyone knew that !!!!

[Guest]

Romney should stop wasting his time and money trying to convince us Newt is crooked. Doesn't he know we elected the biggest Medicare crook of all time our governor?

[Guest]

Why no righteous indignation over Bill Clinton earning $82 million in speaking fees since 2001??

Personally I see more worth in a businessman investing in American companies and either making them work or dissolving them, than paying a consummate B.S. Artist to give a speech he's already given on t.v. many times!

From 2010:
573 days ago
Clinton earns $65 million in speaking fees as private citizen

Posted by
CNN Political Research Director Robert Yoon
June 29, 2010

Washington (CNN) - Former president Bill Clinton stepped up the pace of his paid speaking engagements in 2009, bringing his total haul from these speeches to $65 million since leaving office in 2001.

According to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's annual financial disclosure report released Monday, the former president earned $7.5 million from 36 paid speeches last year, up from the $5.7 million he earned for 25 speeches in 2008. Almost half of his speech earnings last year, $3.2 million, came from 13 speeches delivered in nine other countries, ranging in distance from Canada and Mexico to Turkey, Slovenia, and the United Arab Emirates. The remainder was earned in 23 speeches delivered in seven states and the District of Columbia.

Almost two-thirds of President Clinton's earnings from 365 paid speaking engagements since leaving the White House have come from overseas. Since 2001, he has earned $40.1 million from 197 speeches in 45 foreign countries.

His most popular destination was Canada, where he has participated in 50 paid events for a total of $8.4 million. This includes a June 2008 speech for the motivational speaking conference "The Power Within" in which he earned $525,000, the most he has ever earned for a single event. Clinton has given a total of 21 speeches at various "Power Within" events since 2001 for a total of $4.6 million.

The former president's second most popular overseas speaking destination over the past nine years was the United Kingdom, where he earned $3.2 million for 16 events. Also ranking high were Germany ($2.5 million for 11 events), Australia ($2.3 million for 13 events), and Mexico ($2.0 million for 10 events).

The $7.5 million Clinton earned in speeches in 2009 tops by almost $2 million the amount he earned the previous year, when he devoted six months on the stump campaigning on behalf of his wife's unsuccessful bid for the Democratic presidential nomination. That year, Hillary Clinton loaned her presidential campaign a total of $13.2 million out of her and her husband's personal funds. The Clintons ended up eating the cost of that loan because the campaign was unable to repay the amount by the deadline required by federal campaign finance laws. However, since Hillary Clinton suspended her presidential campaign on June 7, 2008, her husband has earned $12.3 million in speaking fees for 56 events, going a long way towards canceling out the impact of the loan.

President Clinton's most lucrative years on the speaking circuit were 2006, when he earned $10.2 million for 57 speeches, and 2007, when he earned $10.1 million for 54 speeches. In 2004, Clinton spent much of the year writing his memoirs and recovering from heart bypass surgery and earned only $875,000 in speaking fees.......
Clinton earns $65 million in speaking fees as private citizen – CNN Political Ticker - CNN.com Blogs (http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2010/06/29/clinton-earns-65-million-in-speaking-fees-as-private-citizen/)

[Guest]

If I understand your posting, Bucco, you agree that all political candidates have massive prepping via their staff and paid consultants with mock debates that include all possible questions. The candidates are coached into giving the best political spin to the questions - even if that includes turning the question around on the inquirer - as what Newt did with the first question about his "open marriage request".

The candidates spend multitudes of hours with these political consultants to get the answers down pat as well as the "proper" attitude - as in Newt's puffed up anger. All that is just acting.

Your question, you said, was "isn't that the practice of all candidates and doesn't everyone know that?" Yes, it is the pracitce of all candidates and NO, everyone does not know that. At the watering hole, some of the guys thought Newt was so smart to respond with indignant anger about his failed marriage rather than talk about the important issues of the day. No, everyone does not know the candidates are following a scripted act. They just have to remember what their consultants told them and how to act in the proper way for the scripted answer.

[Guest]

Romney should stop wasting his time and money trying to convince us Newt is crooked. Doesn't he know we elected the biggest Medicare crook of all time our governor?

I am not defending anyone on this, but you just cannot continue to make accusations of anyone, Republican or Democrat (although we know which way that goes with you)...you just cant do this...

Fact is that Scott was NEVER ever accused of anything and frankly was NEVER, NOT ONCE even questioned by authorities.

Actually, mid level excecutives were actually charged because they knew what was going on and did nothing to stop it. NEVER did anyone (except political opponents) ever say anything else but the truth..no charges, not even questioned. He resigned in order for the company to clean house.

This is not a political defense of Scott...just a statement of facts. And yes, as chief officer, he has to share the blame

Give your opinions, but please stick to facts....you post the party crap that circulates the net is all you do. He DOES deserve to be criticized as he was the man in charge and that is how it works, but stop with the direct accusations unless you can back it up.

[Guest]

If I understand your posting, Bucco, you agree that all political candidates have massive prepping via their staff and paid consultants with mock debates that include all possible questions. The candidates are coached into giving the best political spin to the questions - even if that includes turning the question around on the inquirer - as what Newt did with the first question about his "open marriage request".

The candidates spend multitudes of hours with these political consultants to get the answers down pat as well as the "proper" attitude - as in Newt's puffed up anger. All that is just acting.

Your question, you said, was "isn't that the practice of all candidates and doesn't everyone know that?" Yes, it is the pracitce of all candidates and NO, everyone does not know that. At the watering hole, some of the guys thought Newt was so smart to respond with indignant anger about his failed marriage rather than talk about the important issues of the day. No, everyone does not know the candidates are following a scripted act. They just have to remember what their consultants told them and how to act in the proper way for the scripted answer.

Not scripted per se, but close. I spent many many hours prepping candidates (believe it or not Democrats) back in Pennsylvania, but that was before the kind of communications and electronic help that is available today, but NO candidate, especially at this level goes into these things stone cold. Anyone who thinks that is very naive.

[Guest]

Dang, Bucco, we honestly agree on this. Downright scary, isn't it?

[Guest]

Why no righteous indignation over Bill Clinton earning $82 million in speaking fees since 2001??

Personally I see more worth in a businessman investing in American companies and either making them work or dissolving them, than paying a consummate B.S. Artist to give a speech he's already given on t.v. many times!

From 2010:
573 days ago
Clinton earns $65 million in speaking fees as private citizen

Posted by
CNN Political Research Director Robert Yoon
June 29, 2010

Washington (CNN) - Former president Bill Clinton stepped up the pace of his paid speaking engagements in 2009, bringing his total haul from these speeches to $65 million since leaving office in 2001.

According to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's annual financial disclosure report released Monday, the former president earned $7.5 million from 36 paid speeches last year, up from the $5.7 million he earned for 25 speeches in 2008. Almost half of his speech earnings last year, $3.2 million, came from 13 speeches delivered in nine other countries, ranging in distance from Canada and Mexico to Turkey, Slovenia, and the United Arab Emirates. The remainder was earned in 23 speeches delivered in seven states and the District of Columbia.

Almost two-thirds of President Clinton's earnings from 365 paid speaking engagements since leaving the White House have come from overseas. Since 2001, he has earned $40.1 million from 197 speeches in 45 foreign countries.

His most popular destination was Canada, where he has participated in 50 paid events for a total of $8.4 million. This includes a June 2008 speech for the motivational speaking conference "The Power Within" in which he earned $525,000, the most he has ever earned for a single event. Clinton has given a total of 21 speeches at various "Power Within" events since 2001 for a total of $4.6 million.

The former president's second most popular overseas speaking destination over the past nine years was the United Kingdom, where he earned $3.2 million for 16 events. Also ranking high were Germany ($2.5 million for 11 events), Australia ($2.3 million for 13 events), and Mexico ($2.0 million for 10 events).

The $7.5 million Clinton earned in speeches in 2009 tops by almost $2 million the amount he earned the previous year, when he devoted six months on the stump campaigning on behalf of his wife's unsuccessful bid for the Democratic presidential nomination. That year, Hillary Clinton loaned her presidential campaign a total of $13.2 million out of her and her husband's personal funds. The Clintons ended up eating the cost of that loan because the campaign was unable to repay the amount by the deadline required by federal campaign finance laws. However, since Hillary Clinton suspended her presidential campaign on June 7, 2008, her husband has earned $12.3 million in speaking fees for 56 events, going a long way towards canceling out the impact of the loan.

President Clinton's most lucrative years on the speaking circuit were 2006, when he earned $10.2 million for 57 speeches, and 2007, when he earned $10.1 million for 54 speeches. In 2004, Clinton spent much of the year writing his memoirs and recovering from heart bypass surgery and earned only $875,000 in speaking fees.......
Clinton earns $65 million in speaking fees as private citizen – CNN Political Ticker - CNN.com Blogs (http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2010/06/29/clinton-earns-65-million-in-speaking-fees-as-private-citizen/)

So I wondered how another famous speaker was doing....Bill made 65 million in 10 years, if the math works that would be 6.5 million a year. Now Sara Palin made 12 million since leaving office in July of 2009. Both of them making heavy money.

[Guest]

I wonder why Gov Scott found the need to plead the fifth 75 times when his company faced the biggest fine for medicare fraud in this country's history.

As far as Bill Clinton and Sarah Palin's speaking fees; as you noted they are both private citizens. They are both free to earn any amount they can. George W Bush would probably like to get a piece of that action.

[Guest]

So I wondered how another famous speaker was doing....Bill made 65 million in 10 years, if the math works that would be 6.5 million a year. Now Sara Palin made 12 million since leaving office in July of 2009. Both of them making heavy money.

She's a consummate B.S. Artist, too, and she's already said anything she's got to say on t.v. too.

Now back to my question about why no righteous indignation about Clinton and his income sources:

April 7, 2008
"The tax returns released by Bill and Hillary Clinton late Friday reveal $15 million earned in a partnership with billionaire “supermarket czar” investor Ron Burkle and the sheik of Dubai, whose Arab state sparked controversy with a purchase giving it control of 22 American ports.

Burkle is widely known as a top “FOB,” or “Friend of Bill,” whose corporate jet Bill Clinton has used so often the New York Observer claims Clinton has taken to calling it “Air Force Two.”

The news comes with the disclosure Burkle’s Yucaipa Companies have created Yucaipa Global Holdings, a multi-billion investment fund whose three investment manager general partners are Burkle, Bill Clinton and the ruler of Dubai, Sheik Mohammed bin Rashid al-Maktoum.

Al-Maktoum was the ruler at the center of public outcry over national security concerns when Dubai Ports World proposed in 2006 to acquire the London-based company that operated 22 ports in the U.S.

WND also reported al-Maktoum has moved to acquire 19.9 percent of the Nasdaq in New York, the second largest stock exchange in the U.S.

Dubai, as WND reported, is also one of the six Persian Gulf nations that has amassed some $1.7 trillion in Sovereign Wealth Funds.

The U.S. Treasury has been quietly negotiating behind the scenes with Dubai and the other Persian Gulf states to set terms for the petrodollars in the massive Sovereign Wealth Funds to return to the U.S. as early as this year. The Arab states are eyeing major investments in U.S. banks and security firms now struggling to meet capital requirements while their asset portfolios remain loaded with troubled and sometimes near-worthless collateralized loan obligations, including collateralized mortgage obligations.

Since the Clintons share a common bank account, fees for investment advice earned by Bill also are received by Hillary, even when the funds trace back to investments made in conjunction with a foreign nation, such as Dubai. The Arab state’s ruling sheik is positioned as an equal partner to Bill Clinton in the managing general partner triumvirate overseeing Yucaipa Global Holdings.

Potentially even more embarrassing for Hillary Clinton’s already struggling presidential campaign are some of the investments held by Yucaipa Global Holdings.

One such investment is Aloha Airlines, headquartered in Honolulu, Hawaii, where the bankruptcy bailout engineered by Yucaipa ended up requiring pilots to take severe economic losses – not the record Hillary Clinton wants campaigning as a champion of labor.

In offering to put $100 million capital into bankrupt Aloha Airlines in 2005, Yucaipa Companies demanded the airline rid itself of the pilots’ pension program.

As the negotiations proceeded, the federally funded Pension Benefits Guaranty Corporation objected, saying Yucaipa’s plan to off-load Aloha’s pension plan would create an unfortunate precedent in which taxpayers were used to off-load a corporate liability to make a company in bankruptcy proceedings, such as Aloha, more attractive to investors, such as Yucaipa.

As the restructuring proceeded, Yucaipa ended up getting the Aloha pilots to make $12 million in concessions, yet the airline has not been able to fight off competition from competing airlines offering deep-discounted fares.......

Clintons cash in on Dubai (http://www.wnd.com/2008/04/61020/)

[Guest]

I wonder why Gov Scott found the need to plead the fifth 57 times when his company faced the biggest fine for medicare fraud in this country's history.

As far as Bill Clinton and Sarah Palin's speaking fees; as you noted they are both private citizens. They are both free to earn any amount they can.

Again, you just say things with no explanation, and I am beyond explaining...just read and learn somethings.

Your life appears to be a one way street to libel anyone who is not a democrat.....that must be miserable. I could care less about what party or what position you take on issues, but I think personal slander is beyond anything you make claims about these people.

Your posts are actually insulting to anyone who believes in this country. You will never, and have never, heard me utter any claims against any politician that I disagree with...it is dispicable in my opinion...if you cannot make a point without slinging garbage...just shut up.

I feel sorry for people like you...you miss the vibrant, exciting politics where you listen to both sides, decide your position on an issue and allow yourself to enjoy the discourse based on facts. And sometimes you change your position based on what you hear, BUT YOU ALWAYS LEARN. In your case, none of this is possible...you are a person who has a soul that is owned by one bias, one party and one view on everything and you allow others to tell you what you should think.

It is amazing when you allow yourself to LISTEN...and especially HEAR...you learn so much. You will never try it and I am just sad for you and your one track mind....must be boring. I find it stimulating and exciting to read both sides of an issue.....I only object to the personal mud slinging. As much as I disagreed with President Obama when he was running, I never once allowed myself to be disrespectful of him and I hope I can always maintain that.

In this case, is Rick Scott my kind of guy...no way. Does he deserve criticism for what happened in his firm....yes. BUT calling him a person who committed medicare fraud is a bit over the top and that kind of mud slinging just rolls off your tongue and only in one direction. That is simply what is wrong with our political system today. Read a bit on why he used the fifth amendment and I by no means agree with his use of it in this case, but at least I know WHY he did it.....THAT does not make him what you called him.\\

Just to clarify...

"Scott indeed did give a deposition in 2000 in which he invoked the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution 75 times. The amendment reads in part that no one "shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself."

Scott's deposition, however, was not part of the criminal fraud case being pursued by the federal government. In fact, Scott was never officially questioned during the federal criminal investigation. Instead, the case in question was a civil case involving Columbia/HCA and Nevada Communications Corp. Nevada Communications alleged that Columbia/HCA breached the terms of a communications contract."

http://www.politifact.com/florida/statements/2010/oct/12/florida-democratic-party/rick-scott-dodges-answers-invoking-fifth-amendment/

Quite a leap you made to condemn a person as you did. Perhaps your sources have a bias ??????