Skip to comments.Will 'New Newt' prevail? (Will he make a comeback like Nixon in 1968?)
Posted on 11/17/2011 6:43:59 PM PST by SeekAndFind
When Richard M. Nixon ran for the Republican presidential nomination in 1968, he faced a daunting problem: A lot of voters just didn't like him. Nixon had made his name in politics as an angry, partisan hatchet man, famous for lashing out against Democrats and the news media. To win the presidency, he needed to find a way to soften that too-harsh image.
In the months before the 1968 primaries, Nixon's campaign staged gauzy television segments that showed the candidate gently answering questions from ordinary citizens, not pesky reporters. In a nation that was divided by domestic crises and the war in Vietnam, Nixon stressed positive themes and "the lift of a driving dream." Reporters wrote about a "New Nixon" and voters who were rallying to his cause.
Now, almost half a century later, another not-always-lovable conservative is trying to stage a similar comeback: Newt Gingrich. This week's polls show Gingrich, whose candidacy was once given up for dead, in a virtual tie with former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney.
Part of the reason, as Gingrich himself says, is simple process of elimination: Conservative voters have tried out a succession of other candidates Tim Pawlenty, Michele Bachmann, Rick Perry, Herman Cain and found each wanting.
But there's another reason for Gingrich's rise: He doesn't sound as angry as he once did. We appear to be witnessing "New Newt."
Old Newt Angry Newt, the one who entered the presidential campaign last spring talked in apocalyptic terms about threats to American culture. Old Newt wrote about "a secular-socialist machine" led by the Democratic Party that "represents as great a threat to America as Nazi Germany or the Soviet Union once did."
"If we do not decisively win the struggle over the nature of America," he warned,
(Excerpt) Read more at latimes.com ...
Meaning what, hinckley? Someone comes out from under a rock shoots from a keyboard and calls me a ‘lefty’ for saying I don’t trust romney or newt makes that person a class a jerk. Period.
Do YOU trust romney and newt?
Actually, I don’t ‘trust’ any of them, but those two even less.
Churchill didn't quit when he became a voice in the wilderness, Newt did.
Your class envy is pathetic. Just think--if you were as smart as Newt and had accomplished 1% of what he has accomplished, you could afford to buy your wife a pricey trinket too.
Sorry you just can't cut the mustard like Newt can.
No comparison is perfect, just as no person is, or was, including (and especially, Churchill).
If you think Churchill was flawless you don’t know history.
If you think Newt’s flaws are deal-breakers, you’re not paying attention.
I was referring to 1934, when Churchill was ostracized by his own party for speaking out against Nazi Germany. He didn’t quit Parliament, and go into the private sector, where he could have made a lot of money, even though he had lost a lot of money in the Stock Market Crash. He kept speaking out until history proved him right.
I would say, “Same to you,” but you are too busy chewing on your feet to try them on. Get a life...or is THIS your life? Playing keyboard cowboy with a bad aim and a soft hard drive.
He probably will prevail. And things will be the same in Washington. Sad that Bachmann lost....
>> If you think Churchill was flawless you dont know history. If you think Newts flaws are deal-breakers, youre not paying attention. >>
Well said. Newt’s flaws and mistakes are what they are, and we’ve all seen them and all been nauseated by them. Having said that, he was fantastic from about 1990 through about late 95. He did a helluva lot of good that helped keep the Reagan economy rolling for years, even if he did crap out in 96 and forward.
The point is this: his sudden conservative religion is not new to him. It was on hold for a while, I’ll admit, but it is not totally new.
Do I totally trust him? No. Will he advance what we all believe incredibly well on the big stage of a debate with Obama. Damaned right, and it will be more important than ever before in Presidential debate history IMO.
It may very well turn out that Newt sucks less than the other candidates.
It’s not just interesting, it’s obvious. I guess they want Romney nominated.... heck, maybe they want Obama for another 4 long and painful years.
President Newt Gingrich..... it’s going to happen.
You’re right. What folks seem loathe to realize is this: in January 2013 a very flawed person will become President after being voted on by 120 million other very flawed persons.
And our choice may be the difference between an avowed socialist who hates America as it was founded - versus a flawed Newt or a flawed Cain or a flawed Perry or a flawed Romney. In fact, it is almost certainly going to be one of those scenarios.
And FTR, if there were a third party ,it would be just as flawed because, dammit, it would be populated with other flawed human beings.
Its called reality.
I can vote for Newt, but never Romney.
We will never leave hell if he is elected.
So we should all refrain from stating our opinions then because we are doomed. We shouldn’t seek out the best we can find or hope for a miracle. We should respond to outrageous corruption by adding one more corrupt, (not flawed, CORRUPT,) pol as head honcho...because somewhere in our deepest souls we are ALL corrupt. This is just damned depressing.
Reality sucks sometimes, don’t it?
But Newt was born for this fight. He has the intellect, the will and the energy to hang in there round after round and deliver blows of his own.
And that's what it takes to stand up to the forces of leftism when they decide to turn the media hounds loose. They fight dirty and they fight to kill.
May the force be with you, Newt.
It’s one thing to have constructive dialog, even Newt welcomes the scrutiny. It’s quite another for some of these folks to spend all day posting one thread after another using articles from liberal rags rather than their own arguments.
You & I have had what I consider constructive, pleasant dialog lately. I don’t think anyone is against such dialog. However, when others simply rehash the liberal talking points, it’s quite another thing. Can we debate without eating our own?