The Candidates
Featured Archives
It’s time for a little bedtime story…
The year was 1994. I was then a young man of 16; full of ambition and determination, and it was then that I first met him.
Well, it sort of went that way…
Actually, my first meeting with Newt Gingrich came when I was to have lunch with him during my two years in Georgia (the two years I spent out of the state of Tennessee). Young and ambitious? Hardly. I was a perennial screw up; drunk stoned, and dethroned- to quote the Jesus & Mary Chain. However, along with a few others, my achievements athletically led to my being selected for this rare opportunity to share lunch with the newly minted “2nd most powerful man in America.” I was completely blown away by the Speaker. To this day, he is one of the most articulate people I have ever met. I’ve met him a couple of more times and have only nice things to say about Gingrich as a person. I don’t judge his morality. I do think he has numerous issues that would be nails in his coffin, but I don’t hold his admitted affairs against him.
First of all, I don’t think he is running unless he really does raise 30 million dollars. Why? Well, first of all, it’s highly unlikely that anyone could raise 30 million dollars in one month in the current state of the GOP, and Gingrich is potentially an even tougher sell. The party is to fractured and divided, and Gingrich is not blameless in this task. In 1994, the Republicans had completely demolished any hope of a future for the democrat party. However, the 1994 election was in many ways similar to the 2006 mid-term elections and the return of the Democrat majority. Many prominent democrat officeholders were under investigation for corruption; Bill Clinton was then considered a sure one term president, and the Republicans promised America a fresh start under a banner brilliantly titled the “Contract With America.” The GOP, without the presidency and no former president still calling the shots, were led by the Contract architect, Congressman Newt Gingrich. The promise to the American people was to clean up the mess. Gingrich campaigned for GOP challengers to democratic held seats, and his gamble paid off. The Republican Party was swept into control and there was a sense of revolution in the air. These were not the same old pork barrel politicians. There were new prominent, fresh faces; “young and ambitious” new congressmen like Joe Scarborough, Steve Largent, Sam Brownback, Tom Coburn, Lindsay Graham, Mark Sanford, and J.C. Watts. The revolution didn’t stop in the House of Representatives, but spilled over into governors’ mansions and the Senate as well. We had new GOP governors like George Pataki of NY, Frank Keating of OK, Tom Ridge of PA, and most notably, George W. Bush of TX. In the Senate, the GOP now had fresh rising stars such as Bill Frist of TN, Jon Kyl of AZ, James Inhofe of OK, Rick Santorum of PA, and Fred Dalton Thompson of TN. These new lawmakers represented a bold change in Washington. It was the first time since 1918 that a party ran on a national platform and represented the ideals of smaller government and less federal spending. It specifically avoided social issues like abortion and school prayer, while focusing on smaller government, waste, and ultimately, reform. It was a brilliant strategy, and Clinton was surely the next target. However, things didn’t turn out they way 1994 predicted.
First, there was the resurgence of Bill Clinton’s popularity. Clinton handled a national tragedy (the Oklahoma bombing in 1995) with grace and his popularity began to recover. He relied greatly on his old advisor Dick Morris to rekindle his image and he succeeded. Morris, the apolitical, amoral strategist, advised Clinton to attack the republicans and Newt Gingrich on their cuts in areas like Medicare; an area Gingrich, who had come to believe that he was invincible, was trying to overhaul. It was a noble idea, but Gingrich was an idea man at heart, and Clinton ran circles around him repeatedly. Gingrich shut down the federal government after a stalemate over the Medicare budget. Clinton politically crippled Gingrich and Newt was forced to reopen the government, to the dismay of many of the class of 1994.
More and more of the original legislation of the contract was either compromised, abandoned, or defeated, like the term limits bill in 1994, which was to hold elected officials to term limits in the house and senate, authored by a freshman senator named Fred Thompson.
Clinton was back on his own turf, now free to work with the republicans. He won public victory after public victory, continuously handing Gingrich blow after blow. Gingrich said at the time, “I’m not a natural leader. I’m a natural intellectual gadfly.” By 1997, it was clear that many of the old guard who had remained in office were set in their ways, and there was little Gingrich could do about it. The class of 1994 ran as reformers, but they couldn’t fight the democrats and the holdovers of the GOP at the same time. By 1998, the revolution was over, though not officially dead until the 2004 midterm election. Gingrich was so weakened by 1998 that he couldn’t even lead the party during the Lewinsky scandal. By the end of that year, his own party forced him out of office. Originally, Bob Livingstone was picked to lead the party into the 2000 elections, but that idea fell through (for details, google it). Gingrich’s ultimate replacement was Dennis Hastert. Hastert, however, wasn’t the leader of the GOP. That designation went to Tom DeLay, and republicans know how he turned out. Ironically, if Dick Cheney had not been named Secretary of Defense under George H.W. Bush in 1989, it would’ve been him and not Gingrich that was first in line for Speaker and likely leadership of the party.
So what do I think of a possible Gingrich candidacy? I would welcome him to the race. Would I jump off the Thompson train to support Gingrich? No. If Thompson failed to last the primaries would I support Gingrich? It’s a possibility. It remains to be seen if he could survive the primaries without being a dead man walking. One of the biggest problems he has is that Hillary Clinton is cruising to the nomination. Gingrich wants to bring a new attitude to the race. I’m all for it, but I doubt the current candidates research teams would play nice with him. Think the press has had a field day scrutinizing Thompson’s every move? It would be that x 10 for Gingrich. Thompson is still playing catch up in organization, learning that you can’t do the virtual campaign without campaigning on foot like the rest of the candidates. Gingrich would undoubtedly have to build a national organization, facing the same problems that plagued Thompson over the summer. Gingrich is another ideas guy who would have to organize quickly, but unlike Thompson, doesn’t have eight months to do so. In the end, it’s really not fair to him. In the 1970’s and 1980’s, campaigns didn’t start until the November preceding the election year. In the last few elections, candidates have declared earlier and earlier, to the point of ridiculousness and leading to public burnout before the primaries have even begun.
Gingrich is a lot of things, but dumb is definitely not one of them. He has gone up against the Clinton’s before and been beaten, or make that badly beaten. The dirt sheets the democrats have on Gingrich are unprecedented. He spent six years being the most hated man by the democrat party during the Clinton era. For those of you who don’t remember the 1990’s or were too young, let me put it this way, Gingrich was roughly as polarizing then as Dick Cheney is today, and much of America still remembers the public image of him quietly crafted by Clinton advisor Dick Morris. Morris is thankfully irrelevant these days, but the damage his surgical dismantling caused Gingrich has not healed, and neither has the damage Gingrich brought upon himself with his own personal behavior.
So, do I think Gingrich will run? In the end, probably not. He has set himself an incredibly high bar of 30 million in one month. He knows it’s not likely, but if he achieved it, why not! Gingrich is admittedly no fan of the current debate process, and is now subject to the same criticism Thompson has been since he declared his candidacy. Do you think Romney and Giuliani will give him a pass when he’s not at the October debates? Of course not, we’ll hear that “Newt doesn’t want to debate the other candidates.” Gingrich’s likely motivation is still to control the agenda of the GOP platform. It is no secret that there have been meetings between Thompson and Gingrich over the summer, and Gingrich has said before that he was waiting on Thompson. When asked whether Gingrich was satisfied with Fred’s candidacy so far, he said, “some good and some bad.” So what is Gingrich waiting for? Well, we’ll find out soon enough, but the Thompson campaign knows. His upcoming stragegy (which race42008 was the second newssource to break, after the Weekly Standard) will be unveiled before the end of October. The punchline… “Where were you during the Revolution of 1994?” Gingrich’s strategy, one way or another, will again be a part of the debate, with or without its architect. It is possible that his flirtation with running is meant to push Thompson towards his political ideas quickly, or he may just be itching to jump back into the national race. Either way, I welcome him back to prominence and possibly the national spotlight. Before Thompson decided that he might run, I was leaning towards Gingrich, and I’m happy to have him involved as a candidate.
What does a possible Gingrich run mean to me as an unflinching Thompson supporter? He becomes my backup candidate, along with one or two others, who I would have no problem supporting if Thompson doesn’t succeed.
September 25th, 2007 at 10:03 pm
Well said, Tommy.
September 25th, 2007 at 10:09 pm
Thanks
September 25th, 2007 at 10:25 pm
I agree, that was a nice read. It will be very interesting to see what Gingrich does.
September 25th, 2007 at 10:40 pm
Who knows, Gingrich might endorse Huckabee:
http://www.mikehuckabee.com/index.cfm?FuseAction=Blogs.Comment&Blog_id=452
September 25th, 2007 at 11:16 pm
[...] crossposted from race42008 [...]
September 25th, 2007 at 11:20 pm
Tommy,
This is a great post which earns extra points in my book for being the first story to reference The Jesus and Mary Chain on R4′08.
September 25th, 2007 at 11:25 pm
Greatly appreciate that, Kavon. Every once in a while I do find time to sit down and pull one of these out of teh air. Time is not always on that side though.
BTW, Darklands is one of my all time favorite songs.
September 25th, 2007 at 11:36 pm
… although I’m still looking for the right topic to use a Westerberg quote.
September 25th, 2007 at 11:47 pm
I don’t remember the 90’s at all. I was entirely uninterested in politics, to such an extent that I thought Bill Clinton’s shame was “phone sex” until roughly the first year of Bush’s presidency. I don’t believe I’d ever even heard of Gingrich until 2004 or so. Where am I going with all this? Simply this; my first and predominant impression of Newt Gingrich is of the Gingrich of today. And I find that Gingrich enormously likable. And I don’t mean this simply in the sense that I like smart, conservative, idea men. I do. But, this extends beyond that. I think, when he’s trying, he’s a personally likable guy. I think if Newt Gingrich weren’t Newt Gingrich, if he was just a random white haired, popular, conservative politician, running on an agenda of “real change means real change”, with his personality traits, and big ideas, he’d be a shoe in for the nomination, and real competitor for the presidency.
In other words, I think if America was just getting to know Newt Gingrich, they’d love him. But, you’ll say I suppose “America’s not just getting to know Gingrich. They already know him, and hate him and that’ll never change. He can never win”. To that I respond, “America’s not just getting to know Hillary. They already know her, and hate her and that’ll never change. She can never win”. A decade out of the limelight makes alot of difference. Nixon lost in 60′, then fell into ignominy after his staggering 62′ Gubernatorial defeat. He was a political lost cause, and America was glad to see him go. Six years later, unlikable tricky Dick is riding into the White House on white horse, America having forgotten their earlier evaluation of him. In 1980, dull George H.W. Bush runs as a moderate Rockerfeller Republican, disliked by conservatives. 8 years later, he gets nearly unanimous conservative backing. They’d forgiven his political sins, and were ready to hop on board. Now Hillary Clinton is pulling off a similar gambit.
How did these unlikable, disgraced, dull politicians win over the support of constituencies that had previously written them entirely off. Time passed, the electorate got over it. It’s sounds astonishing to those of us so invested in all things political, but for the average American, the universe does not revolve around politics. They don’t stay awake at night, reviling that time, more then a decade ago, that mean old Newt shut down the government. If they have any lasting impression of him, and many don’t, it’s more likely to be a negative impression. But, it’s also rather likely to be relatively weakly formed. Unlike Hillary, Newt’s disappeared off the scene. They literally haven’t seen him for a decade. And whatever old temporary passions they might have felt when they knew mean old partisan Newt, are capable of being changed by grandfatherly populist Newt. It’s really that simple.
September 25th, 2007 at 11:58 pm
“… although I’m still looking for the right topic to use a Westerberg quote“
This Minneapolis boy can’t wait…
September 26th, 2007 at 12:03 am
“April Skies” is another sweet song off that album.
September 26th, 2007 at 12:20 am
Matt, great points.
September 26th, 2007 at 1:07 am
Newt is positioning himself as a natural choice to run against Hillary in 2012.
September 26th, 2007 at 6:51 am
Whoa, I’m still trying to figure out who to vote for in 2008. Can we hold off about 2012?
September 26th, 2007 at 7:13 am
I second everything said in #9 — Except for believing that Clinton’s vice was phone sex.
Having been four at the time of the Republican Revolution, I never got to know the Gingrich of the 90’s.
But the Gingrich of today both seems intellectually apt and personally likable.
I wholly reject the notion that he’s unelectable. As I saw somewhere earlier on this site — it might have been Matt who said it — Think. You like Gingrich for a reason.
He’d be my #2 if he entered.
September 26th, 2007 at 7:33 am
[...] A Thompson supporter discusses the possible Presidential candidacy of Newt Gingrich: So what do I think of a possible Gingrich candidacy? I would welcome him to the race. Would I jump off the Thompson train to support Gingrich? No. If Thompson failed to last the primaries would I support Gingrich? It’s a possibility. It remains to be seen if he could survive the primaries without being a dead man walking. One of the biggest problems he has is that Hillary Clinton is cruising to the nomination. Gingrich wants to bring a new attitude to the race. I’m all for it, but I doubt the current candidates research teams would play nice with him. Think the press has had a field day scrutinizing Thompson’s every move? It would be that x 10 for Gingrich. Thompson is still playing catch up in organization, learning that you can’t do the virtual campaign without campaigning on foot like the rest of the candidates. Gingrich would undoubtedly have to build a national organization, facing the same problems that plagued Thompson over the summer. Gingrich is another ideas guy who would have to organize quickly, but unlike Thompson, doesn’t have eight months to do so. In the end, it’s really not fair to him. In the 1970’s and 1980’s, campaigns didn’t start until the November preceding the election year. In the last few elections, candidates have declared earlier and earlier, to the point of ridiculousness and leading to public burnout before the primaries have even begun. Share and Enjoy: These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages. [...]
September 26th, 2007 at 7:46 am
Kavon- I’m full of suprises.
Matt- great reply. That’s one reason I welcome him to the race. I’ll have more on my thoughts when I get home this evening, as you’re reply has sparked another idea that I want to discuss, or talk about. Hopefully, I’ll get it up earlier than this one. (I’m on eastern time and by the time I had this one finished last night, I was getting ready to crash)
September 26th, 2007 at 7:57 am
New Q-Poll out for NJ
Republicans
Giuliani 45 (-1 vs. last poll July 5)
Thompson 12 (+3)
McCain 8 (-3)
Romney 6 (-1)
Gingrich 4 (-2)
Undecided 14 (+2)
General Election Match Ups
Clinton 44 – Giuliani 45
Clinton 46 – McCain 41
Clinton 48 – Thompson 36
Clinton 52 – Romney 33
Obama 40 – Giuliani 49
Obama 44 – McCain 41
Obama 49 – Thompson 34
Obama 51 – Romney 31
Edwards 39 – Giuliani 50
Edwards 44 – McCain 40
Edwards 48 – Thompson 34
Edwards 51 – Romney 30
Favorable/Unfavorable Ratings
Giuliani 61/29 (+32)
Obama 50/23 (+27)
Edwards 47/27 (+20)
McCain 47/28 (+19)
Clinton 51/41 (+10)
Gore 47/41 (+6)
Thompson 26/20 (+6)
Romney 22/27 (-5)
September 26th, 2007 at 8:08 am
Wow, Adam! That’s extraordinary. That even right now, when things look worse for the GOP candidates than I think they will in November 2008, Giuliani still puts NJ firmly in play against Hillary.
September 26th, 2007 at 8:16 am
TLG,
I agree. This is EXACTLY the reason (from a pure horse-race standpoint) that Giuliani is our best bet. Even if Giuliani loses in NJ, he’ll make the Democrats spend there. That can only help us in FL and OH. NJ is NOT spectacularly out of reach either. Bush lost the state 56-40 in 2000, but Kerry only won by 6.7 % in 2004. I really believe that NJ (like the Philly burbs) has shifted away from the GOP primarily because of the party’s stance on social issues. Giuliani can make this a real race.
Anyway sorry to post something off topic, but it was just too good.
September 26th, 2007 at 8:37 am
I think a Newt entrance would effectively split the ‘conservative alternative’ vote and open the door to a giuliani nomination.
Giuliani’s flip flops have not even really been examined. he continues to get the benefit of the doubt with minimal scrutiny because of his tough guy 9/11 image.
as of now, it does not appear that this image will fade given nobody has really challenged him succesfully to this point. If Newt comes in or continues to flirt, it will simply make it harder for anybody else, whomever that might be, to give giuliani a real challenge.
i think this is bad, because if nobody manages to do it before the general, the dems will surely attack these points during the general. Giuliani doesn’t actually mention 9/11 much becuase he knows it is a vulnerability. The republicans have not challenged this image, the dems surely will. I am not ready to hop on the giuliani is the most electable yet, because I am not sure his ‘hero’ image will withstand serious scrutiny. And I also think he will be branded the new ‘flip flopper’ by the dems if he gets the nomination. Giuliani has provided plenty of opportunities for dems to blast that point as well.
And even though Rudy appears to put places like New Jersey in play, would his nomination not possibly put other southern states in play for democrats that we wouldn’t normally have to worry about?
September 26th, 2007 at 9:00 am
There is one thing you have wrong in the article. You state that Morris advised Clinton to attack Republicans on Medicare. That is actually untrue. It was traditional economic liberals like Stephanopoulos who wanted Clinton to attack Republicans on Medicare. Morris considered such attacks to be class warfare and advised against them. Morris wanted Clinton to talk about values issues such as the V-chip or school uniforms (things the federal government has no business being involved in). He also thought Clinton should go on some kind of moral crusade. It was originally going to be about sexual abstinence, but that had vulnerabilities for obvious reasons given Clinton’s background, so they decided to take on tobacco instead. Clinton did the Medicare stuff too though against Morris’s advice, and he carried Florida and Arizona against Bob Dole, two states that had gone for George H.W. Bush in 1992, probably as a result of the Medicare stuff.
September 26th, 2007 at 9:10 am
I also notice you make the comment that the GOP won in 1994 by not focusing on social issues very much. It is interesting how most Republicans under 30, especially of the upscale variety, always talk about how damaging socially conservative views are to the party, but you never hear them talk about how tax cuts for the rich are bad for the party, or how policies that favor corporations over average Americans are bad for the party, or how a war opposed by 70% of the public is bad for the party. If it actually is true that Republicans do best when they ignore or downplay social issues, and I’m not saying it is true, but if it is, what would you advise socons to do to revive our movement? And please don’t say, “Just give up on your issues and accept that you have no place to go.” That is not a strategy. That is retreat.
September 26th, 2007 at 9:24 am
Newt always has me listening to him. The greatest compliment I can think to give him is that I find him positively interesting in whatever he has to say- and very frequently right. A President with his thinking and ideas could make a great President.
But, there is something of the necessary ingredient for President, maybe a leadership ability, maybe something else, that just seems missing with him.
That doesn’t make a difference. Because Newt can never be elected President of the United States under any circumstance. The Clintons and the media have permanently crippled him politically. He is a negative brand name to the general public.
It is so bad, that ironically, if he doesn’t grasp that truth, if he truly believes he can be elected, it puts into question his greatest strength, his ability to reason.
September 26th, 2007 at 9:40 am
Nice article. It was a fun read. But I have to say, I think Newt will get in the race no matter what. He is ambitious and is just looking for an excuse to get in. He is 64 years old and knows that his time is passing.
September 26th, 2007 at 9:49 am
Clarence Claus: ‘He also thought Clinton should go on some kind of moral crusade. It was originally going to be about sexual abstinence, but that had vulnerabilities for obvious reasons given Clinton’s background, so they decided to take on tobacco instead. ‘
Are you kidding me? Bill Clinton, leading the charge for abstinence? Where did you get this?
September 26th, 2007 at 9:55 am
Clarence Claus: ‘It is interesting how most Republicans under 30, especially of the upscale variety, always talk about how damaging socially conservative views are to the party,’
Maybe in New Hampshire, but I seriously doubt that most Republicans under 30, nationwide, disagree with social conservatism. However, it’s a significant minority and a defection by them has the potential to decimate the party for generations to come – unless it does the right thing on social issues.
‘but you never hear them talk about how tax cuts for the rich are bad for the party,’
They are. That’s why I praised Romney’s plan to eliminate dividend and capital gains taxes for 95% of the population. I don’t have a problem with tax cuts for the rich, but with the limited resources we have, we might only be in a position to cut taxes for the middle and lower class.
‘or how policies that favor corporations over average Americans are bad for the party,’
Like what policy?
‘or how a war opposed by 70% of the public is bad for the party.’
It is. However, it’s also the right thing to do.
‘If it actually is true that Republicans do best when they ignore or downplay social issues, and I’m not saying it is true, but if it is, what would you advise socons to do to revive our movement? ‘
If I thought about it, I might be able to come up with a strategy to stave off your inevitable defeat. It is impossible to expect the government to uphold your so-called values, in this day and age. Not having thought about is seriously, I would advise social conservatives to fight their battles not in the legislative arena, but in the court of public opinion. Most people will still not want to live by your standards, so-called, but you will spark less resentment by not forcing people to not live as they want.
‘And please don’t say, “Just give up on your issues and accept that you have no place to go.†That is not a strategy. That is retreat.’
Actually, that is a gain for pro-choicers like myself.
September 26th, 2007 at 10:09 am
As far as Clinton thinking about preaching sexual abstinence as a way to get “values voters” before deciding to go after tobacoo instead, I heard Mona Charen say this once on a talk show. I don’t think the defeat of the pro-lifers is inevitable. The morally correct side always wins in the end, it just sometimes takes longer than other times. However, just as the anti-slavery forces won in the end, the anti-abortion forces will one day win in the end too. Imagine saying before 1860, “If we just abandon the anti-slavery cause, we can win more elections.”
September 26th, 2007 at 10:10 am
It the MSM were objective, Newt would have a chance and the Clintons would be spending life in prison. What a sad state we’re living in.
September 26th, 2007 at 10:13 am
Myself I think he’d do better as the idea person behind the scenes at a campaign or a presidency, a policy Rove if you will. The thing Guiliani, Romney, and Huckabee would need would be help in how to get things through Congress. I think he’d do reasonably well in the primaries (fifth-sixth) but I don’t think he can get to the nomination. We need the 30 million more for the general than we need another Don Quixote in the primaries.
The primaries have been moved absurdly early, that is true, but it is the reality we face. I think we need to start narrowing the field, not expanding it. Hunter, Tancredo, and Brownback seem redundant. Paul seems irrelevant. Granted we only have 3 months till Iowa (where hopefully a couple will back out), but getting this narrowed down a bit now is going to ensure whoever the winner is gets more air time between now and then.
September 26th, 2007 at 10:14 am
Awakened, you say in there that you agree 70% of the people oppose the war in Iraq, but you think it’s the right thing to do. I hope you can understand that’s how I feel about abortion. No matter how unpopular it is with the public, I think it is the right thing to do. How come people like you won’t compromise on the war in order to win elections, but you expect people like me to compromise on abortion in order to win elections. And the war is far LESS popular than the pro-life position is.
September 26th, 2007 at 10:36 am
The practical reality is that if Gingrich won’t get in until he gets $30 million, he won’t get in.
September 26th, 2007 at 10:46 am
Clarence Claus: ‘As far as Clinton thinking about preaching sexual abstinence as a way to get “values voters†before deciding to go after tobacoo instead, I heard Mona Charen say this once on a talk show. ‘
I don’t think Mona Charen would be reliable as an original source, but perhaps she got it from one of Dick Morris’ books.
‘I don’t think the defeat of the pro-lifers is inevitable. The morally correct side always wins in the end, it just sometimes takes longer than other times. ‘
It’s not just the pro-life issue that is touted by social conservatives, although I can assure you that, even if Roe is overturned, abortion will be legal in at least 30 states, 100 years from now. Your defeat on other issues will be more swift and painful. By the way, the pro-life side is not morally correct, and that is why they will lose.
‘However, just as the anti-slavery forces won in the end, the anti-abortion forces will one day win in the end too.’
Just like pro-slavery forces sought to enslave blacks, pro-womb control forces are seeking to enslave women. They will fail. Human freedom will prevail once again against the forces of reaction, as it did in 1865.
September 26th, 2007 at 10:50 am
Clarence Clause: ‘Awakened, you say in there that you agree 70% of the people oppose the war in Iraq, but you think it’s the right thing to do. I hope you can understand that’s how I feel about abortion. No matter how unpopular it is with the public, I think it is the right thing to do.’
I have difficulty understanding it, but I’ll take your word for it. Hopefully, you will understand how strongly I feel about the pro-choice issue.
‘How come people like you won’t compromise on the war in order to win elections, but you expect people like me to compromise on abortion in order to win elections.’
I do not expect you to willingly compromise on the issue of abortion, as compromise is alient to many pro-life absolutists, but I want the more moderate parts of the GOP to force the issue. You will be able to decide whether you vote for Clinton, Giuliani, or not at all.
‘And the war is far LESS popular than the pro-life position is.’
That’s not really relevant, because the war is crucial for the survival of this country, while outlawing abortion is not.
September 26th, 2007 at 11:37 am
He said it himself: “I’m not a natural leader. I’m a natural intellectual gadfly.â€
We need a natural leader right now, someone who can rally the party around him and change Americans’ view of the GOP. Newt may have the ideas, but flirting with the MSM over whether or not he’s going to run for president is not the right way to get them out. He should be shutting his mouth and offering his support to the eventual nominee. This is all about his ego, it’s sickening.
September 26th, 2007 at 11:41 am
Awakened, that’s why I just hope we can outvote people like you in the primaries, and I hope we will.
September 26th, 2007 at 11:43 am
and I think we will I should have said, Rudy cannot go all the way to Super Tuesday without a win, and he is basically depending on South Carolina and Florida, when the socially liberal Republican starts depending on 2 Southern states for his fate, he is in trouble
September 26th, 2007 at 11:46 am
So fighting a war in a country that has not attacked us and had no WMDs is crucial to the survival of this country, but preventing millions of our most innocent babies from being killed is not crucial
September 26th, 2007 at 11:57 am
Awakened, even in the unlikely event that he does get the nomination, you won’t force the issue by making conservatives choose between him and Hillary. The conservatives will make sure there is a third party candidate so pro-lifers have someplace to go. All they would need to get would be 5% and Rudy would lose the election. Then we can try to beat Hillary in 2012 with a real conservative.
September 26th, 2007 at 12:08 pm
I agree with Marvin Olasky
“…in an interview on July 30, 1999, the day his divorce filing became public, he said he did not plan to run for president and would instead keep busy ‘developing the next generation of ideas.’ That is the perfect calling for Gingrich, because he owes his rise to his impressive intellect.”
http://www.worldmag.com/articles/12837?CFID=1611482&CFTOKEN=27888935
I wonder if Newt has any assurances from his ex-wives that they would not oppose a presidential bid? Seems like there’s material for some very damaging ads there.
September 26th, 2007 at 12:16 pm
Clarence,
Thanks for the correction. Actually, when I post an opinion piece I usually spend quite a while researching it to make sure I have my facts in order (which is one reason I don’t post these regularly like DaveG. as I don’t always have the time to write longer opinion pieces without mainly using direct quotes and passages from other articles online). The checks in the articles from Newsweek named Morris as the one who quietly advised Clinton to go after Medicare, but my memory can be bad. I think it was the same link as the quote linked above was taken from.
BTW, I am basically a social conservative, but remember that the campaigns in the early 90’s relied much more on the youth vote than they do today, which will be the topic of the next article I plan on writing today. I’m on a roll- I might actually post a couple long ones over a short period!
September 26th, 2007 at 1:10 pm
Clarence Claus: ‘and I think we will I should have said, Rudy cannot go all the way to Super Tuesday without a win, and he is basically depending on South Carolina and Florida, when the socially liberal Republican starts depending on 2 Southern states for his fate, he is in trouble’
First of all, Florida isn’t really Southern. Second, he will try to win New Hampshire, the state that is probably most receptive to his ideas.
‘So fighting a war in a country that has not attacked us and had no WMDs is crucial to the survival of this country,’
Excuse me, but this is not about whether we would do it again if we knew that Iraq had no WMDs. This is about whether we will cede Iraq to the terrorists. And it is crucial that we don’t.
‘but preventing millions of our most innocent babies from being killed is not crucial’
Obviously, I don’t agree with you that abortion is killing.
‘Awakened, even in the unlikely event that he does get the nomination, you won’t force the issue by making conservatives choose between him and Hillary. The conservatives will make sure there is a third party candidate so pro-lifers have someplace to go. All they would need to get would be 5% and Rudy would lose the election. ‘
Ultimately, it’s a choice between Giuliani and Cinton. Apparently, you think that pro-lifers will choose to help Clinton by voting third party. We shall see.
September 26th, 2007 at 1:11 pm
Tommy Oliver: ‘but remember that the campaigns in the early 90’s relied much more on the youth vote than they do today, which will be the topic of the next article I plan on writing today.’
Sounds interesting.
September 26th, 2007 at 1:52 pm
I do think some pro-lifers would do that. Absolutely.
September 26th, 2007 at 3:00 pm
Clarence,
Also, I sure as hell didn’t come from the upper income bracket. I have a lot of skepticism of the elites.
September 27th, 2007 at 4:46 am
hwy !! who went for divorce filing ..? was it Newt Gingirch .. ?
Nevertheless , it was not in any way as ’spicy’ as the CLinton-Lewinsky scandal. was it ?
Sean Taylor.
http://www.ezcampaigns.com