Skip to comments.Is Newt Gingrich's recovery for real?
Posted on 11/17/2011 9:54:01 PM PST by johnatures
COMMENTARY | Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich's rebound in the polls is real enough. The question is whether conservative Republicans are simply trying him out as the newest anti-Mitt Romney candidate, or whether he is about to be the newest Republican for the 2012 nomination.
Recent polls show the ex-Georgia congressman has made a tremendous recovery in the polls, passing former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney and ex-CEO Herman Cain with 23 percent of the vote, according to a Nov. 16 Fox News poll. Other surveys, such as the show a tighter race, but nobody disputes Gingrich's strong recovery from earlier stumbles. The question is how he got back into the nomination race.
(Excerpt) Read more at news.yahoo.com ...
Another factor is experience. Outside of Ron Paul, Gingrich has about as many years in national office or leadership roles as all of the others combined.
Race was a problem for Newt Gingrich early, as he labeled Obama "the food stamp president" while the media saw that as a signal for coded racism. Gingrich was able to neutralize that, at least among Republicans, with those professional Lincoln-Douglas debates with Herman Cain.
Finally, Gingrich has put his early mistakes behind him. Expensive charge accounts and lavish trips aren't smart moves in a slow recovery, but these goofs are not illegal, and now they're old news.
And your guy Herman Cain endorsed Romney as recently as 2008. So what?
Cain/Newt ‘12 and then we drop him for Cain/Rubio ‘16 for Cain’s second term.
Rubio/Ryan ‘20 & ‘24
Why not just put all the nominees name on a wall and then put a blindfold on somebody and give them a dart?
Some have, not all.
Newt is smart, quick on his feet, a good debater, but otherwise is a genuine phony. 9 posted on Wednesday, November 16, 2011 2:56:09 PM by Jim Robinson
I believe Newt has been a player. He didn’t see the Tea Party strength anywhere near soon enough, but fell in with the standard for Republican DC behavior, and simply supported the (R) behind her name. He wrote his climate book back in the same mind set of trying to do the middle of the road thing and entertained foolishness.
If, he has finally seen the enabling going on of RINO think in Congress in its contribution to the advancement of facism and Marxisim, and the abysmal failure to put a stop to these Leftist movements, we may have someone here who can hoe a row, or two.
Certainly Newt is his own War Room capable of taking care of the opposition and the Left’s drag out of old news smears against him. For sure he is more than capable of taking down Obama in a debate. People need the breather between multiple fails on the ability of the other candidates to keep their loft when they have it.
Anyway, most believe that the actual mission is to beat Romney as soon as possible, and Obama in twelve months. We will be seeing no sure bets for awhile yet. If it’s to be Newt or Romney, Newt will be the man.
I already saw Newt in action as Speaker. No sale.
You mean when he was the tip of the spear in the historic Republican sweep of Congress?
No, I mean when he was on the back of Bubba’s plane whining.
“I already saw Newt in action as Speaker. No sale.”
So did I...
I saw he led the 1992 “Republican Revolution”, and the Contract for America.
He led the charge against Bill Clinton and his illegalites, which earned him the hate and ire of the National Media.
He led the charge FOR Welfare reform, passing THREE bills before getting one Clinton was forced to sign, and against HillaryCare.
He shut down the government over the Balanced Budget Plan, and was thoroughly pillaried by the mainstream media for it.
He FORCED Bill Clinton to present a BALANCED Budget, for the first time since 1969. He forced Clinton to sign the Capital Gains Tax Cut, as well.
And also, lest ye forget, it was TOM FOLEY and the Republican ESABLISHMENT who led the charge against Gingrich to resign, because they wanted the power to create a Shadow Party money network, just like the DC Dems had.
I am surprised so many Freepers forget how hard he fought against Clinton, and the Radical Democrats.
Yes, the Left used that well and won over fools with a mole hill. I’m not a Newt defender, however, as I am both a fan and a critic and have seen it all with Newt, but I haven’t a clue who among the field will be on top next, or again, or in twelve months. I am not yet a Cain supporter. In fact, where is everyone lately? Posts are very slow coming and nobody I know is on threads? What’s up with that? Maybe my PC is acting up on the slow loads?
You can spare me the arguments. Heard ‘em all. I know, I used to defend him, too. I learned my lesson. No sale.
I just find it astonishing why I’d have to explain to ANY true-blue FReeper why Newt is a no-go. Unfortunately, we’re going to be treated to a litany of talking points and other rationalizations with respect to his candidacy by his booster club, and it still doesn’t cut the mustard. He had his moment in the sun, he led the GOP to a majority, but he folded in the budget showdown and all but handed Bubba a second term. He then skulked off when he couldn’t even win a third term (despite his repeated panderings to the left of the party).
I’ve been thoroughly repulsed and disgusted by his post-Congressional behavior, his desperation to be loved and accepted by the media/big government establishment**, his personal life shenanigans, his thumbing his nose at the Conservative grassroots and on and on (the Dede Scuzzyfava incident was the final straw for me, and no excuse can be made for it, none). He’s an almost 70-year old man grasping for one final attempt at glory for which he is neither entitled to nor deserving of. Simply put, I do not trust him.
We know the goal is to prevent Slick Willard from getting the nomination... but so is stopping all the other RINO prima donnas who have no business running for President (from Perry to Newt, etc.). Herman Cain is an outside-the-box choice, something truly different, and I’m willing to take a chance on him and give him the benefit of the doubt. Someone from outside the political culture who hails from the business world. He also presents a visceral threat to the political establishment (one for whom is unthreatened by people like Willard, Perry, Newt...), and that is a big plus in my book. It won’t be Newt who finally leads Blacks away from the Democrat Plantation unlike the other lily-White sixtysomethings.
As for your query about postings, I’m not sure what to say. FR seems to be loading fine for me, although you do have a point about these strangers (or infrequent posters, if not n00bs) showing up lately. They have certainly been noticeably absent for many of the vetting periods as of late and in the past.
Well, I must say that I am beginning to wonder if FR has run off everyone, finally, who isn’t in the tank for Cain.
It is just eerily quiet from supporters of Bachman, Santorum, Perry, even Newt. With Cain’s demise and Perry’s demise and Bachman’s, befuddlement must rule. Articles use to come up a half dozen at a time all night long, and there is plenty of news today.
I don’t know about Cain yet. He seems exhausted from the grueling grilling of the Gloria’s girlie garbage gushers.
Maybe he can make a come back. Perry has gotten aggresive but no one seems to be listening, so the news follows the wordy one—Newt. I dunno. Maybe we start all over and keep recycling, in order, Bachman, Perry, Cain and Newt. Whoever comes out on top with perfect timing by election day wins.
You suggest that Herman Cain is superior but you offer no other reason except that he is a businessman and that he is "an outside-the-box choice, something truly different...." In other words, he is an unknown quantity to the degree that we must "take a chance" by nominating him and, God help us, by electing him.
These are not times for indulging whims of this sort. The nation is in the throes of one of its greatest, even existential crises. Herman Cain simply has not demonstrated the breadth of knowledge or the depth of intellect necessary to guide the country through a perfect storm of economic disasters which are imperiling our very capitalist system. Nor is he a man who has demonstrated a capacity to guide the nation through a multigenerational war with fanatical, suicidal, and aggressive Islam determined to put an end to the American culture.
That is why a plurality of the party is unwilling to join you in taking a chance on this man. That is why the party is moving toward selecting Newt Gingrich as the best relative candidate among a finite field of three to take the helm of the ship of state on a tempest tossed sea.
Yes Gingrich is 68, but Cain has had cancer. It is a chimera to believe that Herman Cain will make any significant inroads into Obama's hold on the African-American vote. He will have no more effect than did Michael Steele. That vote is as amenable to reason as is the Arab street. Any compromise away from winning other demographics, especially the Hispanic vote, to gain the African-American vote will only cost us an election so long as Barak Obama is the candidate and probably for a long time thereafter.
Since we must pick from among a finite field, that means that we have to judge the relative advantage and disadvantage of the candidates. You express disapproval of Gingrich's "shenanigans" but I for one believe the charges against Herman Cain concerning sexual harassment and I will say that a good part of the electorate will too. Gingrich at least married the gal. If you want a monogamous candidate, and that is your only criterion, Mitt Romney is clearly your man. But Romney is not your man because, relatively speaking, his other disadvantages outweigh that advantage, even in your eyes.
Concededly, we are engaging in a purely subjective exercise. Each conservative will have to examine his heart and, I hope, exercise his brain. There is certainly no scope for excoriating another conservative because his subjective judgment on this matter is different from mine.
A plurality of conservatives and Republicans are moving toward the judgment that Gingrich as the best relative choice. I hope those considerations include three factors: electability, conservative bona fides, and vision. These are the standards upon which I make my choice among these candidates and on these tests Gingrich comes out way ahead.
Well, not like I’d complain too much... ;-) I never saw a particularly large contingent here for Bachmann or Santorum (Bachmann I had as a backup choice about tied with Cain if Palin didn’t get in, but she seemed to just lose steam, although I’d readily admit that not having executive business experience or Gubernatorial was a drawback for her, the House is a terrible place to launch a Presidential campaign from — the last Republican to do so was James Garfield in 1880, and he was already a Senator-elect).
The Perry people have gotten noticeably quiet (which I’m certainly not misty over), but the Newt people have been coming out of the woodwork as of late.
I do think Cain was able to handle and disarm the allegations. I tend not to trust most media reports on him, anyway. If he was so easy for Zero to beat, they’d be pimping his candidacy (note how the media fawns all over the career politician White guys in the race, they’ll take any of ‘em — just before they shred them AFTER the nomination). If by some chance Cain genuinely bottoms out, me personally, I’ll offer the same suggestion I did in 2008 after Fred Thompson dropped out... demand a new set of candidates chosen by the Conservative grassroots base to be haggled over at the RNC convention (which used to be done in the old days).
Just as an aside, perhaps it’s time we make it so a candidate CAN’T declare for President... that he/she has to be “drafted” without any links to those doing the drafting. Offer up, say, 500 names to start from, from the business world, military, academia, Governors, Congress, and start a process of elimination until we get down to 10, and then allow those 10 to run in a primary.
Imagine a contest this year with these names:
Rep. Allen West (FL)
ex-Gov. Sarah Palin (AK)
Justice Clarence Thomas
Gov. Scott Walker (WI)
Prof. Walter Williams
Dr. Thomas Sowell
Sen. Jim DeMint (SC)
Rep. Michelle Bachmann (MN)
David or Charles Koch
Gen. David Petraeus
In almost every instance you could say, “These are good choices, these guys are Conservative.” No matter who wins the nomination, we can live with it and not be disappointed and threaten to refuse to vote for them in the general. No more getting saddled with RINOs, liberals, prima donnas and the like.
And given that class of subpar choices, it was a very easy one to make. This is very close to a repeat of 2008, which was outrageously execrable.
"You suggest that Herman Cain is superior but you offer no other reason except that he is a businessman and that he is "an outside-the-box choice, something truly different...." In other words, he is an unknown quantity to the degree that we must "take a chance" by nominating him and, God help us, by electing him."
Put it this way, I already know what we'll get with most of the rest. Again, why it was very easy to go with something new and something different. If he turns out to be a terrible President, we can take comfort in the fact that all the other choices will be just as dreadful in their performances.
"These are not times for indulging whims of this sort. The nation is in the throes of one of its greatest, even existential crises."
True, but we've had many difficult times with an election at a pivotal moment. We have got to change course, that much is certain, but entrusting that change to occur with the same-old, same-old failed political establishment types is sheer folly. I think Cain could pledge to serve a single term, and devote that time exclusively to moving us in a new direction rather than being in perpetual campaign mode.
"Herman Cain simply has not demonstrated the breadth of knowledge or the depth of intellect necessary to guide the country through a perfect storm of economic disasters which are imperiling our very capitalist system. Nor is he a man who has demonstrated a capacity to guide the nation through a multigenerational war with fanatical, suicidal, and aggressive Islam determined to put an end to the American culture."
I disagree. I think he does. In fact, he appeared to be the only candidate to address that latter issue early on. I can tell you that I don't trust any of the others running to do so.
"That is why a plurality of the party is unwilling to join you in taking a chance on this man. That is why the party is moving toward selecting Newt Gingrich as the best relative candidate among a finite field of three to take the helm of the ship of state on a tempest tossed sea."
Again, pure folly. He had his shot and he blew it. He pledged to take on the culture of DC and instead, he all but gave in and has forever sought their approval. Just because he can give a good debate and put on a show doesn't justify willfully ignoring everything else he has been wrong in doing (and that's before we even get to the three marriages). To put it crudely, the thought of Newt running for, let alone serving as, President produces a three-letter response, "WTF ?" This guy left office massively unpopular and is a thorough joke to grassroots Conservatives who have followed his post-Congressional career with slack-jawed bewilderment. Simply put, he has been assimilated by the dark side. I don't care what he says, it's the same kinda "I found Jesus" talk that criminals and RINOs engage in. You know the saying about being fooled twice.
"Yes Gingrich is 68, but Cain has had cancer."
And at last check, it is in remission. McCain battled cancer, too, and he's still with us (for better or for worse). Cheney battled poor health from his 30s onward. We have to presume their physicians gave them the OK to mount a race or would not be doing so. My point about Gingrich, whom is older than Cain, is that (like Perry & Willard), these are yet more of the same stereotypical old (sixtysomething) White guys that the media and pop culture consistently lampoon us over. None of these guys have demonstrated that they have something special within them to alter the current dynamics, either in DC, or with the voting public. Old and predictable. To the media/political establishment, it is only acceptable to them for us to nominate these old White guys. They're terrified if we go outside the box... a woman (Palin) or a Black man (Cain). Terrified to hysterical proportions. They know that those kinds of candidates can break out of the mold and create a new kind of dynamic. The leftist media and political establishment are the ultimate reactionaries against REAL change for the better.
"It is a chimera to believe that Herman Cain will make any significant inroads into Obama's hold on the African-American vote. He will have no more effect than did Michael Steele."
Steele was viscerally incompetent, he was my almost near dead-last choice for party chairman (with Katon Dawson and Ken Blackwell being my top two picks of the time). No one expects Cain to somehow flip a 90%+ Democrat allegiance to an even split in one election. But if he starts to chip away at it, 15%, 20%, 25%, that seemingly small amount starts to have a profound impact for the long run. The Democrats CAN'T lose 20-25%+ of the Black vote. But one thing we know... put up a Gingrich or Willard type, and we'll never begin to make those inroads we will have to make for the long term. With the changing demographics, it is suicide for the Republican Party not to begin to make those inroads.
"That vote is as amenable to reason as is the Arab street. Any compromise away from winning other demographics, especially the Hispanic vote, to gain the African-American vote will only cost us an election so long as Barak Obama is the candidate and probably for a long time thereafter."
You're talking about compromise with respect to moving to the left. I am not. Half the reason we fare so poorly amongst Blacks is simple... we don't ask for their vote, we don't campaign for it, and we don't appear serious in WANTING it. The party has been especially guilty in halfhearted attempts to make inroads. Occasionally, we might put up a candidate with appeal, but we don't give them the support they need to win (money, GOTV, you name it). We can then say we "ran" candidates, but the (Black Community, et al) didn't "want" them. Nonsense. There's a part of the party establishment that doesn't want "those" people in it holding office. I absolutely believe there is an element of the GOP that is racist. I think some of it comes out in the opposition to Cain.
"Since we must pick from among a finite field, that means that we have to judge the relative advantage and disadvantage of the candidates. You express disapproval of Gingrich's "shenanigans" but I for one believe the charges against Herman Cain concerning sexual harassment and I will say that a good part of the electorate will too."
I believe the allegations against Cain are not only without substance, but reflected the above racism I cited, albeit more from the racist left media standpoint (though it is entirely plausible someone from within the GOP wanting one of those establishment candidates, horrified at the notion of a Black man as a standard bearer, was responsible for the "leak"). There is no way in hell the media would've aired such allegations against Obama in 2008 without having been attacked by their own colleagues as racist (nevermind their failure to thoroughly examine the homosexual allegations made). The charges against Cain are already "yesterday's news."
"Gingrich at least married the gal."
Doncha mean "gals" ? We know Newt's track record of marital fidelity is decidedly lacking. I think the public might be forgiving of once, but when it goes multiple, that looks bad. Giuliani went through three marriages, too, and I similarly assailed him for how that looked to the base of the GOP (worse, yet, as Giuliani is a Catholic and Newt a convert, that will really rub those constituencies who adhere to doctrine on marriage the wrong way). But that's just the icing on top.
"If you want a monogamous candidate, and that is your only criterion, Mitt Romney is clearly your man. But Romney is not your man because, relatively speaking, his other disadvantages outweigh that advantage, even in your eyes."
His immorality manifests itself in other ways, as we have seen.
"Concededly, we are engaging in a purely subjective exercise. Each conservative will have to examine his heart and, I hope, exercise his brain. There is certainly no scope for excoriating another conservative because his subjective judgment on this matter is different from mine."
Well, the question must be asked, "Are they Conservative ?" I was "corrected" some weeks ago in a discussion of Hollywood politics when I pointed out that decades ago, Warner Bros. was considered the "Democrat" studio under Jack Warner... Warner claimed to be a Republican I was told. Yet Warner consistently supported Democrats (and left-wingers at that) and in only one instance could be shown as having supported a Republican, only to then turn around and pander to the Democrat victor. People can call themselves whatever they want, but their actions determine if they truly are what they claim to be.
"A plurality of conservatives and Republicans are moving toward the judgment that Gingrich as the best relative choice. I hope those considerations include three factors: electability, conservative bona fides, and vision. These are the standards upon which I make my choice among these candidates and on these tests Gingrich comes out way ahead."
And it is, for reasons I've cited above and elsewhere, why Gingrich is simply unacceptable as a Presidential candidate, and that there is virtually nothing he can do to change that perspective. His choices and actions are why that conclusion is the only one that can be reached. The rest can be dismissed out of hand as "just talk."
Yeeeeoww. Forgot to ping you to post #19...
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.