race42008.com » Blog Archive » Race 4 2008 Early Morning Essential Reads

SGS Says:
September 21st, 2007 at 8:51 pm
Rumor has it that Newt will jump in on Nov 1st, according to “Newt’s in”. Here is a quotation:

sources hint that after Halloween, Newt will go into full-time campaign mode

I’m wondering if he is putting pressure on some frontrunners to select him as VP? Or is he really so smart to a point that he lacks the common sense. I mean, there is no way he could do well with just two months of campaigning!
Matt Says:
September 21st, 2007 at 10:28 pm
SGS,

I don’t know. Newt’s the smartest political operative in the business. He’s been setting himself up as a populist change agent for months now, and frankly there’s no better moment for a populist change agent to arrive, then late in a campaign. Lookj the populist types on the Democratic side. Both Edwards and Obama have tried to position themselves in that manner. Edwards has failed, rather gloriously, because he’s an old hand. It’s difficult to be a populist when you’ve been running for president continously for 5 years. Obama has failed because he’s been unable to live up to expectations, and the excitement factor has worn out in the intervening months. Fred’s attempt at that mantle has failed in large part because EVERYONE knew he was running since March. So he was perceived as attempting to duck criticism, and this reinforced his lazy reputation.

Newt, on the other hand, has been given the gift of Fred Thompson, which has caused people to forget about him largely. Newt enters in late October and early November, and it’s a legitimate surprise, with legitimate excitement. He gets waves of free press to talk about reforming Washington, and diverging pretty significantly from the Bush administration. Everyone, by that point, is fed up with the field. Fred’s had a few lackluster debate performances, and continues to underwhelm on the campaign trail. And maybe people remember, that he’s done this sort of thing, rather prominently, in the past. And they’re more willing to look past the Newt circa 96′, and decide to allow him to ride in on his white horse to save them. And it’s creates this whole narrative, that even the MSM won’t be able to crush.

Will it work? I have no idea. But, a populist wave is lightning in a bottle. It’s almost impossible to catch, and it’s lights often dim in after the initial flash. The timing needs to be just right. Fred, Obama, and Edwards missed the wave. Maybe, with a deeply disatisified Republican electorate, the wave will ride up to meet him. Stranger things have happened. And to those who suggest that Newt’s a sure general election loser…well, you really ought to examine the circumstances that would see Newt as the Republican nominee. If he enters in November, he ONLY wins the nomination, if he’s managed to inspire a massive, tidal-like populist phenomenon.

In the modern era, such a phenomenon can’t help but cross ideological divides. If Newt appears out of nowhere, inspires the Republican electorate, and wins the nomination in a blaze of glory, it’ll be the biggest political triumph (and by extension the biggest political news story) in decades. In other words, if Newt’s our nominee, it’s because he’s transformed himself from Newt the partisan circa 96′, to Newt the populist circa 94′. And Newt the populist, Contract with America Newt, beats Hillary Clinton like a bongo drum.
MetroRepublican Says:
September 22nd, 2007 at 1:04 am
I think the use of the term “populist” is confusing here. What you’re describing has more to do with popular grassroots support.

“Populist” has meant anti-wealth in the past, and Newt’s political positions are pro-capitalist/anti-populist.
bethtopaz Says:
September 22nd, 2007 at 2:40 am
Definitions of populist:

1. A person who believes in the right and ability of the common people to play a major part in government.
2. A person who studies, supports or attracts the support of the common people.

adj

1. Said of a political cause, programme, etc: appealing to the majority of the people.
SGS Says:
September 22nd, 2007 at 10:22 am
Matt, it is a very risky course to take. Sure, Newt may ride on the about 30% of those who are unhappy with the present Republican crop (as we have seen with Fred’s jumping in). But this does not necessary carry over to the general election. It is not enough that you win the nomination, but that you too prove yourself that you can build the grassroot, that you can raise the money, that you have developed approaches to various issues (well, here Newt does good). It does not require much to cause voters stay home rather than showing up at the booths.
Emtee Says:
September 22nd, 2007 at 11:11 am
Newt would be too easy to attack in the general election, his biggest issue being hypocrite going after Clinton while committing his own indiscretions. Sure, he didn’t lie under oath like Clinton did but do you really think voters would distinguish the difference? He would just come off looking really bad. I don’t think there is any way Newt can win the general election.
DaveG Says:
September 22nd, 2007 at 11:28 am
Newt is ironically trying to turn a negative into a positive and run as something that would once be laughable: the electable conservative in the race.

Each of the other four major GOP candidates have made major tactical errors that have put them even with or behind Hillary Clinton, the likely Democratic nominee with astronomical negatives. The fact that a candidate with nearly 50 percent disapproval can tie or beat all four of our top guys is telling.

Rudy, as much as I love the guy, has tried too hard to prove his fiscal and foreign policy conservatism in order to make up for his social views. The result is a Rudy who seems like Forbes on economics, which doesn’t play well among the moderates who will decide the race next year. He has also failed to make a clean break with Bush on foreign policy. Considering that most Americans oppose the president’s foreign policy, this is troubling for general election voters.

Romney has attempted to stake out more moderate views on economics and nat’l security with his health plan and his recent calls to start bringing troops home. But in order to avoid being labeled just another Rockefeller Republican, he became the second coming of Rick Santorum on social issues. Again, moderates who decide this election are not going to vote for such a candidate in the general.

McCain tied everything to doubling down on the Bush Doctrine and is now basically a non-factor.

Thompson was supposed to enter the race as the orthodox conservative who could make a case for a clean break with Bush and the GOP establishment. He was supposed to be the McCain from 2000 with a southern flair that could cover questions about his secularism and past issue positions and allow him to chart a course towards majority. But Thompson continues to seem to be running on empty. Not sure he stands for anything at all except for conservative nostalgia about what was and what might have been.

That leaves Newt. Gingrich is going to attempt to accomplish the unenviable task of calling both the president and the Democrats on their respective crap and, in so doing, win a majority of Republicans in the primaries and set himself up for a general election win. I doubt Newt can pull it off, but I’m glad someone understands what it will take to win in 2008.
husky Says:
September 22nd, 2007 at 11:38 am
The more I read these threads, the more I grow tired of Rudy lovers like Sampo, TLG, and others who call out “Romneybots” simply because they support Mitt. I dont hear them fall over themselves at a chance to bash Rudy like the anti Mitt posters on this site do. So since Youtube is the prefered site of the anti Rudy posters, I will make sure others know about Rudy.
husky Says:
September 22nd, 2007 at 11:41 am
Does anyone think that someone who supports taxpayer funded abortions will really win among social conservatives.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ALDfwXIYUX0&mode=related&search=

Or should we just assume the following.
1. social conservatives havent seen this video OR
2. Has he flip flopped on this issue?
ACT Blog Says:
September 22nd, 2007 at 11:44 am
Romney’s recent calls to “start bringing troops home” were nothing more than an endorsement of the Petreaus plan - which is consistant with his past positions of letting the generals make the decisions.

–

As for Social issues, those who are die-hard liberal on Social issues are never going to vote for a Republican, and moderates who are pro-life and pro-family generally consider social issues more important than those who are pro-abortion and pro-gay marriage. A strong candidate with the right views and experience can easily combine those assets with Conservative social positions without losing votes.
ACT Blog Says:
September 22nd, 2007 at 11:46 am
As for Newt, he adds nothing to the race - and I mean NOTHING, he adds even less than Thompson, who, at the very least, is a popular Southerner.

The only result of a Gingrich entry is a further split in the Conservative vote - which raises the likelihood of a Rudy win. If he does enter, and the above plays out, I dobut Conservatives will ever forgive him.
MetroRepublican Says:
September 22nd, 2007 at 12:01 pm
Husky, I dunno, but he SHOULD’ve flip-flopped on this issue, because it alienates BOTH wings of the GOP.

ACT, “those who are die-hard liberal on Social issues are never going to vote for a Republican.” Well, you’d certainly consider me that, and I’ve never voted for a Democrat in my life.
MetroRepublican Says:
September 22nd, 2007 at 12:02 pm
“As for Newt, he adds nothing to the race - and I mean NOTHING”

Um… what? He adds more ideas than all the other candidates combined.
ACT Blog Says:
September 22nd, 2007 at 12:41 pm
“Well, youâ€™d certainly consider me that, and Iâ€™ve never voted for a Democrat in my life.”

So you consider defending abortion rights and instituting Gay marraige a top priority? No, by die-hard liberal on Social issues, I mean not only the positions, but how important you rank them.

–

“Umâ€¦ what? He adds more ideas than all the other candidates combined.”

I’m not talking about policy plans, or election strategies. Name one thing this race is missing that Newt would add.
MetroRepublican Says:
September 22nd, 2007 at 12:56 pm
Policy plans and election strategies. LOL.

Isn’t that what it’s all about?
MetroRepublican Says:
September 22nd, 2007 at 12:57 pm
It’s certainly not “nothing–and I meant NOTHING.”
bethtopaz Says:
September 22nd, 2007 at 1:27 pm
husky, what was the date of that video? rudy is pretty clear on his stance on abortion.
I bet politicians hate youtube.
MetroRepublican Says:
September 22nd, 2007 at 1:33 pm
beth, that’s from 1989.
bethtopaz Says:
September 22nd, 2007 at 2:33 pm
thanks, metro.
Matt Says:
September 22nd, 2007 at 3:13 pm
“Iâ€™m not talking about policy plans, or election strategies. Name one thing this race is missing that Newt would add.”

IDEAS are missing from the race. There’s a fairly plausible idea being circulated in Republican circles, that the focus on the War on Terror, combined with 8 years out of power, has left the Republican Party in a 1980’s mentality on virtually all non-defense issues (and even some of those). Democrats have many of the big ideas these days. They’re bad ideas, to be sure, but they’re ambitious enough. If we send up another candidate who says, “we can’t highly tax the wealthy, because their success trickles down to the rest of society” as a major economic pillar, we’re going to lose in a landslide. As DaveG has argued, that argument made sense against 70% marginal income rates. It has considerably less staying power at 35%. We need new big ideas, suitable for our 21st century world. That’s what Newt does. That’s at the very center of his America Solutions.
SGS Says:
September 22nd, 2007 at 5:25 pm
Matt, if Mitt with his 50 proposed policies does not equal IDEAS, then can you please clarify on what you mean by ideas that Newt could provide that others have failed to do so?
SGS Says:
September 22nd, 2007 at 5:27 pm
And oh yes, if there is a biggest weakness that Newt has, it is his ability to execute his ideas. Why could not he do more to work with other candidates and get them to say something on his points? Or rather, why is he not hosting a debate and present his ideas to the present candidates. Why does he think he can be president — aside from his great ideas that he barely could execute, if any at all.
Matt Says:
September 22nd, 2007 at 6:15 pm
SGS,

Mitt has the best ideas in the current field, to be sure. But, Newt has more. He’s spent the last year working exclusively on ideas. And where is it written that a candidate needs to add something entirely new to the field, to be a worthy addition? Isn’t it enough that Newt’s running as more anti-administration, more idea centered, and more generally conservative, then any other candidate in the race?

Also, why do you expect that Newt can’t execute his ideas? Because he was stymied occasionally by Bill Clinton? The Contract with America was, in many ways, a resounding success. And many of the accomplishments that Clinton claims are directly attributable to Newt’s leadership (welfare reform, balanced budgets). The fact that he was outmaneuvered at the end of his speakership by a terrific political operative, doesn’t minimize his accomplishments, or diminish his proven ability to lead.
jim Says:
September 22nd, 2007 at 6:34 pm
DaveG,

Perhaps the fact that Hillary has such high negatives but seems to do ok in election match-ups means that one of the two polls is wrong

Conversely, one could say that the fact that certain GOP candidates seem tobeat or tie Hillary given Bush’s abysmal ratings, the drubbing the GOP took last year, the lack of popularity of the war in Iraq, and all the other bad things that have happened to the GOP is a good thing and means that the GOP has a good shot of winning

Recent polls have showed Rudy beating Hillary in Ohio and Florida, and nationally. Others have shown Fred and even McCain in similar if slightly less comfprtable positions

Keep in mind that general election polls this far out are largely worthless

Polls at similar times showed Carter clobbering Reagan, Mondale and Hart ahead of Reagan, Dukakis destroying Bush, Bush walloping Clinton, Bush stomping Gore, etc…
SGS Says:
September 23rd, 2007 at 11:11 am
Matt (#23), I may be mistaken here, as I did not follow the political storm of 1990s that was led by Newt. Some months ago, I started to read a bit (and it’s very little) about Newt, to see what he has to add to this race. It seems to me that there is one common theme across a few articles about him is his ability to form ideas into actions, but he often got ahead of the pack. He often ended up not executing those actions incompletely, becasue of that. Am I mistaken?