Posted on 03/16/2012 11:56:59 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
I have known Newt Gingrich for 27 years, beginning at a time when he was relatively obscure except to C-SPAN devotees who saw him chronically criticizing the majority leadership in the U.S. house of representatives (he was a minority backbencher). That continued to the Republicans’ surprise upset victory (much of it designed by him) in the 1994 elections which led to him being elected speaker of the house, and then to his resignation four years later, followed by a decade-long career in speaking, creating public policy think tanks and authoring and co-authoring numerous books on American history.
Mr. Gingrich is one of the few men or women in American politics who is truly sui generis, and it has come to no surprise to those who know him that he would close out his elective career with a serious run for the presidency. That campaign, while not yet concluded, has included some of the characteristic ups and downs, highs and lows, brilliance and blunders that have marked his political life begun almost 40 years ago.
Newt Gingrich’s place in American political history is secure whether or not he wins his party’s nomination for president. It would now appear that he will not be the Republican nominee in 2012 (although in a political year such as this one, nothing is absolutely final until the delegate tally in Tampa).
Twice in this political cycle, Mr. Gingrich’s candidacy was written off, and twice he has re-emerged by force of his ideas, his debating ability and a gritty persistence. One more time, many in the media, both liberal and conservative, have decided his candidacy is over, or to employ a baseball analogy, that a third strike has been called on him, and he is out.
Thus, there are calls for Mr, Gingrich to withdraw gracefully from the contest, and allow Rick Santorum to duke it out with frontrunner Mitt Romney for the remaining delegates. I think nothing would be more inappropriate.
To those who view a presidential nominating campaign as purely a horse race and a clash of personalities, it is logical to call for Mr. Gingrich to withdraw. But there are fundamental flaws in this thinking at this time. First of all, although anything is possible, there is no reasonable chance that Mr. Santorum will be nominated in Tampa. He has had recent success because he was the only remaining candidate who spoke to the social and religious wing of his party, a wing which has felt its issues have not yet been expressed in this political cycle. But these concerns, however legitimate, are not the primary concerns of the majority of the Republican electorate. Nor even more conclusively are they the concerns of the majority of American voters, including the almost one-third who belong to no party and ascribe to no formal ideology. Why should Mr. Gingrich, who has received almost as many popular votes as Mr. Santorum so far, and who represents a much broader conservative view than the former Pennsylvania senator, now stand aside for him?
Secondly, it is a misunderstanding of Mr. Gingrich’s political personality to think he would withdraw at this point without what he would feel was his full contribution to the political conversation in such a pivotal political year.
Without Mr. Gingrich, the debates would have been far duller. Without some of his ideas, the GOP campaign would have been less original. And without his historical perspective, the critical nature of November election would have been less urgent and clear. My point is that, while the eventual GOP nominee may have been determined (Mr. Gingrich will understandably strongly disagree with me on this), the full nature of a potentially successful Republican challenge to President Obama has not been determined.
Count me as one of those who feels that a GOP nomination contest finally settled too early is neither good for the party nor good for the country. It will be apparent soon enough (probably in May or sooner) who the nominee will be. Meanwhile, let the conversation and the debate continue. Mr. Santorum should remain in the contest, as should Ron Paul. I don’t agree with some of what they advocate, but they represent legitimate points of view within their party. And most certainly, Newt Gingrich should remain in the race until he feels he has had his say and presented fully his case.
Mr. Gingrich has made his share of political mistakes, both before this campaign and now during it. He is a volatile personality who appeals to some voters, and turns others off. He is probably now not going to be president of the United States. But the Republican Party, and the Democratic Party, for that matter, have no one with comparable a vision of the past, present and future of this “exceptional” nation among the nations.
So let Newt Gingrich finish what he began. Let history write the truest account of what he has done.
Working with Al Sharpton on education, Barney Frank on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and Nancy Pelosi. Conservatives worked with: 0. Conservative causes helped: 0.
I don't care whether he stays in or not. I just hope next time he runs as a Democrat.
Here’s how to tell when it’s time for him to drop out. When Newt supporters tell him it’s time.
Naturally, Santorum supporters like me think he should drop out. And almost as naturally, Newt supporters think Santorum should drop out. All of us agree that Mitt should drop out. But when a supporter says his own candidate should step aside, that’s the beginning of the end.
I’ve noticed several such Newt supporters here on FR in the last few days suggesting it’s time for Newt to drop out.
“Conservative causes helped:0”
“next time he runs as a democrat”
You are kidding...right???
They should all drop out, and Paul Ryan should step in. It’s completely frustrating that we’re using our JV team when this is a Varsity game that’s being played.
Regardless of who our nominee ends up being, we must HOLD HIS FEET TO THE FIRE and support as many conservatives as we can to fill the house and senate with like-minded people who will hold the line and then advance the cause of smaller, less-intrusive government.
Only one candidate campaigned for democrat votes in a republican primary.
Democrats are genius's at making Republicans look like fools on just about every subject, and Republicans seem to make the same mistakes over and over. Republicans wanted to fix FannieMae and FreddieMac, but they lost every time due to the House and Senate. How can they do that if they never attempt to work with Democrats? Liberals shy away from facts, they just will not accept that Republicans have a different method of tackling these problems. I agree working with Nancy Pelosi may have been a bad idea, but I think he was right to try to influence the conversation with conservative ideas on the subject. I don't know all the facts about each of these cases, but I also do not believe his heart was in the wrong place by trying.
Mr. Newt was able to convince a great many Democrats to go along with many of his proposals when he was speaker. Even had to step on a few Republican toes to do it, which is why some Republicans still have their panties in a twist. Bush worked with Kennedy on No Child Left Behind. I am sure Santorum worked with many liberals on union projects because he is such a union representative. Are you going to hold that against him? Look at his voting record. Romney worked with an 85% liberal legislature, and look what happened in Massachusetts. He touts his record all the time about working with liberals. However, you only hold Mr. Newt to his record, how about theirs?
Mr. Newt will all his faults is still the most qualified to be President. Are you saying that he never worked on Conservative causes? How ignorant can you possibly be? You should take the time to watch the video “Newt Gingrich and the Republican Revolution” and then tell me he did not progress the conservative party on every issue. How about taking control of the House after 40 years of Democratic control? Get off your high horse and come back down to reality. Do your research. And by the way, Mr. Newt did not support cap and trade as Santorum continues to say. He also did not lobby for FannieMae and FreddieMac, another lie.
Great article. You damn right he should stay in. Obama’s recent attacks on Mr. Newt should tell you all you need to know. Has Romney or Santorum given good enough arguments that Obama’s fighting with them? NO.
EAGLES UP MR. NEWT...STAND AND FIGHT...AND WE WILL STAND WITH YOU.
Which candidate said capitalism is evil? Gingrich. Which candidate said global warming is science? Gingrich. Which candidate portrayed conservatives as wackjob social engineers? Gingrich. Which candidate went on rant about how terrible conservatives are, because they dared to criticize him for trying to push Dede Scozzafava on them?
The United States does not need another Rockefeller Republican, ans especially a socialist like Gingrich.
The United States does not need another Rockefeller Republican, ans especially a socialist like Gingrich.
A few mistakes in many years that Gingrich admitted were wrong.
Which candidate campainged for democrats to vote for him in a Republican primary and then laughed about it?
Since we are talking about who should run as a democrate you might not want to continue with this. LoL!
I am so sick of Gingrich taking credit for other people's work. The American people were responsible for 1994. And if any one man was responsible for 1994, it was Ronald Reagan. Gingrich and his supporters try to steal credit for what Reagan did. I'm sick of Gingrich supporters trashing Reagan. Gingrich isn't 1% of the man Reagan was.
Gingrich fought Reagan until he grabbed onto his coat tails. In 1968 Gingrich was the Southern Director for Rockfeller, the anti-Reagan. In 1974 and 1976, Gingrich ran to the left of his Georgia Democratic opponent. In 1976, Gingrich stood with Ford and Rockefeller against Reagan. In 1989, Gongrich cosponsored with Pelosi the 1989 version of Cap & Trade to destroy the economy. I'm sick of this revisionist history painting the man who said, "Clinton makes me melt," as any kind of conservative.
Okay, I get where you are coming from. RINOland. I’m not angry. I’m just amazed people are buying into this charade. One year ago, people on FR knew the Gingrich. Unfortunately, Romney has tricked many people into supporting Gingrich.
I find it hilarious you refer to Gingrich, an adult male, like a character on a PBS Children’s show. Why can’t Gingrich supporters like a real adult male.
You said Gingrich should run as a democrat.
On the one hand we have Gingrich who admits mistakes. While on the other hand we have Sick Sanatorium who laughs about campaigning to have democrats vote for him in a Republican primary.
When a person admits a mistake then he can be blamed for making the mistake but you keep blaming him as if he never said it was a mistake. Which is only something an angry guy having a breakdown would insist on spamming and wasting peoples time with.
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.