Posted on 10/05/2011 7:36:49 AM PDT by ken5050
Just tossing this out to see what others think...
As Cain's meteoric rise in the polls continues, overlooked is the equally surprising strength in Newt's numbers. Left for dead a few months ago, after a series of gaffes and miscues that made him a semi-laughingstock, Newt has reinvented his campaign, and has risen in the polls to about double-digit levels. He won't be the nominee, but can we talk about a Cain/Gingrich ticket? In many ways..it makes sense...a lot of sense.
Cain/Gingrich would stomp the living hell out of Obama/Biden and the State Run Media.
There is no one anywhere that can articulate Conservative political philosophy, i.e. The Framer’s Constitutional philosophy better than Gingrich.
Newt has many fatal flaws but he is the one guy that can take on the State Run Media and make them look like the pimps and sluts that they are.
Cain can keep above the fray and Newt can deal with all the Washington B.S.
I happened to watch the debate where Ricky Peron self-immolated on stage.....Cain and Newt would be unstoppable.
I am so tired of that picture;)
I like the idea. And why do we worry about Newt’s baggage when we’ve been subjected to Clintoon’s philandering. Really -— did Newt do anything as horrificaly embarrassing as Clinton, with the cigars and the stained dress and all of that silliness?
Newt is STUNNING in debates. He’s STUNNING w/ all media. He’s conservative. He’s been hammering away at conservative causes for years, even during the uncool times, never giving up. I like that about him.
There is nothing even close to Clinton's multiple serial and parallel affairs and skirt-chasing in Newt's "affair". His relationship with Callista Bisek started after Gingrich was officially separated from and was discussing divorce with his second wife, Marianne Ginther, and they haven't lived together and maintained separate residences (he lived in Washington D.C, she in Jonesboro, Georgia) for more than six years, since June 1987 until 1994 when he was well on his way to becoming a Speaker of the House as the leader of Gingrich Revolution / Second Republican Revolution, which forced Clinton to publicly concede that "the era of Big Government is over".
Obviously it was not a great time for him to be getting divorced - he was pretty busy for the next 4 years with getting the Contract With America voted on and pushing the Welfare Reform, budget reforms and other policies and not much time to settle his personal life. He and Marianne "reconciled" to maintain the appearance of the family. Still, all the while Marianne was hostile to his political success and higher ambitions:
From "Newt Gingrich: The Indispensable Republican." - Esquire, by John H. Richardson, 2010 August 10
"Back in the 1990s, she [Marianne] told a reporter she could end her husband's career with a single interview."
Spoken clearly as a threat, not like a loving wife - their marriage having been long dead - yet throughout all this Newt provided for her and they have kept all the "family" savings in Marianne's name and in her personal accounts. How many of the people who keep saying that he was the one who was at fault and mistreated her (and his first wife, Jackie Battley, who they insist he "served with divorce papers on her deathbed, dying of cancer" which we know to be a lie perpetuated by a pathetic fraudster David Corn) know or understand this?
Ref: Jackie Gingrich Cushman : Setting the Record Straight (about my dad's first marriage) - FR, post #55, 2011 May 15
BTW, in the above link to her interview in Esquire magazine - she did deliver on her threat / promise when she understood that he is running in 2012 cycle - despite her telling her story to a friendly reporter from a friendly, liberal publication, she comes across as bitter and unsympathetic while Newt seems energetic, motivated and relieved, with no ad hominem attacks on his ex-wife. It takes at least two people to make any marriage "successful"; maybe people should remember this when jumping to conclusions and automatic guilty verdict about Gingrich on his less than perfect marriages.
After "disappointing" mid-term Congressional elections of 1998 just weeks after the House voted for Clinton impeachment (which Senate Republicans completely mishandled later in 1999) the hapless GOP establishment joined the MSM in putting the blame on Gingrich. His agenda having been mostly accomplished and with the dissent in the rank-and-file and the GOP "leadership" he decided it was best for him and the party to quit the Congress and finally settle his personal life by finalizing the divorce from Marianne (which has been quite ugly as she has promised). Divorce was finalized in 1999 and in 2000 he married Callista Bisek in Virginia, where they live now.
Yet another reason for resigning Speakership immediately was also his precarious financial situation due to the obligation to personally repay $300,000 loan from Bob Dole (he could make more money and have more time for [new] family in the private sector) to pay a ridiculous fine for "ethics violation" imposed on him by House Ethics Committee to reimburse its expenses on investigations of numerous allegations filed by Democrats against Gingrich:
From House Speaker Turns To Dole For $300,000 Gingrich Takes Loan To Pay Fine - Ph. Inquirer, by David Hess and Steven Thomma, 1997 April 18
Under terms of the loan, Gingrich has until 2005 to repay the $300,000, plus an annual interest rate of about 10 percent. But Gingrich can delay any payments until 2005, three years after the date he has said he expects to leave Congress. Christina Martin, Gingrich's press secretary, said the speaker probably would not make any payments on the loan, even for interest, until he has left public office. The interest will accrue on the loan, so that Gingrich will be paying interest on the interest as well as the principal. If he waits until the last minute to repay the whole loan, his liability could approach $650,000. As speaker, Gingrich draws an annual salary of $171,500, but presumably could make far more out of office in speaking engagements. In his speech to the House, Gingrich said he would repay the loan from his personal resources, rather than dipping into his campaign fund or setting up a legal defense fund. He said he had seriously considered those two options but had rejected them lest they trigger a public backlash. ..... < snip > Dole decided to lend Gingrich the money even though the two have never been personally close. During the 1980s Gingrich referred to Dole as the "tax collector for the welfare state." More recently, Dole openly differed with Gingrich in opposing the government shutdown two years ago. ..... < snip > Gingrich said that he and Marianne, who initially bridled at depleting the family's resources to pay the penalty, agreed after weeks of agonizing "to do what was best, what was right, morally and spiritually." In addition to his annual salary of $171,500, Gingrich apparently retains about $420,000 of the $1.2 million in royalties he earned from book sales. Most of his financial assets are held in a money-market fund and some other investments, all in his wife's name. ..... < snip > In an attempt to resolve his ethics case, House Speaker Newt Gingrich announced yesterday that he would pay his $300,000 penalty with borrowed money - with Bob Dole as his banker. Gingrich announced the surprising arrangement in an 18-minute speech to the House, with his wife, Marianne, watching from the gallery. ..... < snip >
BTW, the $500,000 credit line from Tiffany's that Callista Bisek applied for in 2005 may have been related to the repayment / refinancing of this loan (due with interest in 2005), as Marianne Ginther walked away from the marriage with the bulk of the Gingrich family assets, which were in accounts in her name. Callista and Newt had to start their married life from nearly scratch.
Ref: Newt: NBC News Owes My Wife an Apology
Both in his time in Congress and since leaving, Gingrich has made some mistakes (who doesn't?) which he has acknowledged and has done some brilliant things that were either misunderstood or deliberately misrepresented by the left / media and the right (GOP establishment, potential competitors, political hacks and their chorus of saboteurs, strategic neophytes / blunderers / screwups etc.) yet he has done more for conservatives and conservative causes than anyone except Ronald Reagan.
Gingrich's Secret Weapon: Newt Inc. - FR, post #56, 2011 May 15 (excerpt)
Gingrich's Secret Weapon: Newt Inc. - WSJ, by Neil King Jr. and Patrick O'Connor, 2011 May 09
The pairing would unite men with both business AND political gravitas.
Worth considering.
Liberal media has a double standard: One for conservatives and one for Dems.
Why?
Because they can!
Great research.
There is such an obvious pattern of strategic and tactical warfare when a conservative is involved.
DESTROY BY ANY MEANS NECESSARY. (see Newt, Sarah and soon to be Herman).
How about this image?
You don't have to agree with someone on the issue to be able to discuss it in a civil manner. In fact, not being civil or amiable wouldn't get you in the door - and you'll miss maybe the only opportunity to present your views to an otherwise hostile audience of brainwashed skulls full of mush who consider you the enemy if you don't believe in "man-made anthropogenic global warming".
Argue with them on "science" of "global warming" and you won't have a chance to explain to them that Gore / Kerry / Reid / Obama / Pelosi "solutions" to "environmental" / energy "problems" will cost them dearly and require "sacrifices" from them that they don't understand and wouldn't be willing to make. Instead the solutions are more abundant, cheaper and cleaner "green" energy, such as nuclear, natural gas, more efficient fuel (without harmful additives such as MBTE or ethanol) etc. etc.
Instead of sacrifice, scarcity and pain, you offer them cheap and abundant energy and mobility. Once you contrast your positive, cheaper, better solutions instead of the grim, expensive, painful sacrifice "solutions" of "conservation" or expensive and expansive "environmental footprint" of inefficient wind and solar farms, you will turn them to your side... You don't replace their goals, you replace their "solutions" with the ones that could be easily explained and proved... and you win the war without fighting or changing their "faith".
Once you take over Gore's army with your own environmental message, the "green generals" will have nobody with them - nobody will voluntarily settle for the dark future guaranteed by the "solutions" today's "green charlatans."
We often go for the "war" instead of looking for the victory. Sometimes you don't have to fight a war to win it, sometimes you have to fight more than one battle to win a war - make sure you stay relevant and have access onto the battlefield.
How about these stratagems?
"For want of the battle the kingdom was lost"
"Keep your friends close and your enemies closer"
"You can't win an argument if you are not on the field or in the arena of ideas"
"Pick battles big enough to matter, small enough to win"
"Don't fight a battle if you don't gain anything by winning"
BS Nancy and Newt had the same agenda. Reagan and Gorbachev never did.
Newt is a hack and actually a ‘trojan horse’ for Perry as he and Perry are good buddies, even wrote a book together. Newts job is to take votes away from the true conservatives in the race so Perry can go after Mitt. Then Perry rewards Newt with the VP spot.
I am not trying or expecting to convince you to vote for Newt or trust him politically.
But at least let us stop perpetuating the liberal lies and myths about his marriages and his personal life (”chasing interns” etc.) and making him into some kind of a monster who mistreated his wives and his family, just because he wouldn’t discuss this subject and defend himself, though the facts on that are clear. It’s not worthy of conservatives to smear a candidate just because we may not like him for some other reasons, valid or not.
BS Newt is damage goods at best. A bipartisan, Global Warming Elist snob who has long ago forgot and abandon his conservative roots so that he could play with the ‘Big’ boys inside the Beltway. Even the mention of his name sullies the very things that FR stands for. Liberals no longer have to lie about Newt, they just make deals with him.
I see not reason why Newt couldn’t and shouldn’t be the nominee. I have been studying his campaign more closely since Sarah is out. I do believe he ‘gets it’ and has the tools to reverse the damage.
Here is an interesting piece I just read:
http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/279554/root-and-branch-candidate-andrew-c-mccarthy
I see not reason why Newt couldn’t and shouldn’t be the nominee. I have been studying his campaign more closely since Sarah is out. I do believe he ‘gets it’ and has the tools to reverse the damage.
Here is an interesting piece I just read:
http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/279554/root-and-branch-candidate-andrew-c-mccarthy
Watch Face the Nation today..it should be online somewheres..Cain and Newt both on TOGETHER..soide by side..really good..
I saw Face the Nation with Herman Cain and Newt together. They were fantastic. Cain explained in plain terms that people could understand and relate to, the conservative economic principles he believes in. Newt, explained what must be done to rein in the runaway judiciary branch.
As long as we could keep Newt away from making the executive decisions, he would be great as a VP riding roughshod over Congress. Being a former Speaker of the House, he understands the inner workings and could whip Congress into shape. The dems would not be able pull any tricks without him having a way around their games. Though he would have to carry out Cain’s executive decisions and not decide to go green all over the place or have any Nancy Pelosi couch flashbacks.
Cain could explain his policies to the American people in a way that people would understand. He would set the policies that gets govt. out of the way and Newt, working Congress, could make sure those policies became law.
I must admit, until I saw those two together today, I would never have imagined putting Newt any where on anyone’s ticket. I guess in this case, Perry was right. Herman Cain and Newt Gingrich as a team have everything covered. They were really great together on Meet the Press.
FYI..Cain was also on with Candy Crowley yesterday..CNN's State of the Union...and it was one of his most impressive outings..he's gettign very good at handling the MSM
I agree Cain/Gingrich ticket for 2012, Bolton to replace Hillary, Remove every liberal from every management position in Government and down size our government to a sustainable entity. Seal the Border with Mexico. Remove the drug cartels from this country. Make Sheriff Joe Arpaio the head of the Home Land Security. Adopt a no tolerance policy and change the law that if you Sell and distribute drugs or humans in this country you loose your citizenship.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
