See them live! Newt and Al
And this was in 2009, well after the whole world knew what an epic failure Barack Obama was and, likely, after Newt had gotten the bug to run for President:
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 ...
I think Cain and Perry could/would counterattack in a race against Obama. Moreover, I think they could do it in a way that would be “fresh,” for lack of a better word.
Plus, once the race is won (from our lips to God’s ears!), the President is going to have to do a lot more than counterattack. For one thing, he’s going to have to inspire. And I think that is something Cain could do very well. Gingrich, not so much.
As I’ve said, though, I’d gladly vote for Gingrich is he gets the nomination. I’d rather see him as Cain’s VP, though, so he at least has a few constraints on his “reach across the aisle” tendencies.
Stating the fact that someone wears $45,000 necklaces is not proof of “class envy.”
Are you ignorant of what the Checkers speech was about and what it is famous for?
If so, maybe that is why you did not understand the allusion to the Gingrich’s wealth — which they earned (as one has said, as “domestic policy entrepreneurs”) and which is a fantastic ode to capitalism — as a contrast with the lore of Mrs. Nixon’s “Republican cloth coat.”
It’s not class envy to point out that a very wealthy person who spends money on luxury goods cannot politically make a speech based on how frugal, simple and plain their spending is.
Duh.
See them live! Newt and Al
And this was in 2009, well after the whole world knew what an epic failure Barack Obama was and, likely, after Newt had gotten the bug to run for President:
I glossed over this item in the article when I read it. But it pretty much says it all:
New Newt is conciliatory, even bipartisan. In several debates, he's refused to criticize his rivals and has scolded moderators for — gasp! — trying to accentuate their differences. As president, he told voters in Iowa, one his first acts would be to reach out to Democrats.
"It's become much too partisan in both parties," said the man who has been accused of destroying the bipartisan tradition in the House of Representatives.
Bears repeating:
As president, he told voters in Iowa, one his first acts would be to reach out to Democrats.
Then what?
That’s not the choice. Our choices have not yet been clarified, but they will be as we get closer to voting.
Do you dispute that Newt’s political record has any bearing on his electability or how he would govern?
As for his adultery and other moral lapses, he has apologized and asked forgiveness. Given. However, there are still political consequences and these incidents still are relevant to evaluating Gingrich’s political instincts.
To me, Gingrich’s personal foibles are relevant not so much because of their moral meaning, but because they demonstrate just how deeply he bought into the “typical Washington politician” culture, lifestyle, power-hungry-I-can-do-what-I-want-and-slither-out-of-it-later worldview.
Newt’s political character and instincts were fully formed during this time he was saying he was a conservative family values guy while he was actually an EXTREMELY typical D.C. uber-politician.
And he continues to show signs of old-school D.C.’isms. I hope you can see how that makes some conservatives hesitant about trusting him with the presidency.
Your grammatical background dropped my jaw. If I had known last night what I know now, I’d have bit my tongue and slunk off into the night. ;)
“Do you dispute that Newt’s political record has any bearing on his electability or how he would govern?”
No. There are some pretty impressive accomplishments back there. No, I would not dispute his record in politics, any more than I would dispute RR’s, dubious as it was at times. It is what it is.
Would I prefer him to someone who is an avowed Marxist? Yes.
Would I prefer him, warts and all to any of the others currently in the field? Yes. His accomplishments alone outweigh all of theirs together.
I have no desire to see any of the others elected, but would pull the lever for whoever among them is chosen to run.
Newt's Secret Weapon: Newt, Inc.
Including this that involves Obamacare:
A longtime domestic-policy entrepreneur, he founded his Center for Health Transformation in 2003. The group now includes big drug makers such as AstraZeneca PLC and top insurers, such as BlueCross BlueShield Association, who pay as much as $200,000 in membership fees. In return, they get access to Mr. Gingrich, interaction with other group members, and marketing and research support.
Looks like there's more breaking on this even as we speak. As I was getting that link for you, saw that several news reports had been posted in the last hour or so, including:
Gingrich Under Fire for Business Deals:
Republican presidential candidate Newt Gingrich told CBS News this week that he expects the controversy over his work for Freddie Mac to blow over quickly. Now, however, the former House speaker is now under the microscope for advancing other causes seemingly anathema to the Tea Party vein of conservatism -- including a health insurance mandate and corporate influence peddling.
The think tank, which offered its clients special access to Gingrich, advocated a form of the individual mandate -- a requirement that "anyone who earns more than $50,000 a year must purchase health insurance or post a bond." The individual mandate in President Obama's health care overhaul is at the heart of conservative opposition to the law.
Gingrich was not, so far as I've read, a registerd lobbyist for the big pharma and insurance industry, but he was and sought to be a highly paid advocate (functionally the same thing) for health care industry reforms that:
(1) aligned with Obamacare's individual mandate provisions, and--
(2) were informed by industry members with special access to Gingrich, based on paying huge membership fees to his for-profit "think tank."
But "bipartisanship" has long ago ceased to mean "working together." It's a code word and Newt knows very well what it means and how he's using it.
He seems clueless of just how far the Tea Party movement has taken the GOP base away from those old-school ideas of kum-bah-ya.
You have focused only on Gingrich’s accomplishments. I agree they are impressive. (And I certainly will vote for him if he’s the nominee.)
But what my question went to was: what about his political problem spots? Do you dispute they are there? And what’s your take on how they will (1) affect the race and (2) affect how Newt would govern if he won the White House?
Do you trust Newt to have conservative instincts when it really counts? If so, why?
Thanks.
I got to say, I just don’t get it. We are conservatives! We believe in capitalism. Did Newt do anything illegal, unethical, or out of step w/ capitalism? Is he profiting from being speaker? Yes. Is that a problem as long as it’s not illegal?
I have to step into his shoes. If I had been a past Speaker, & corporations were willing to pay me big money for my ideas & knowledge of how the system works, would I have turned them down? NO! Conservative org.’s have long been working on solutions to the healthcare problem. Some of the proposed solutions have been bad. It’s part of the process.
These corp.’s got special access to Newt. And? He was a private citizen! Had he received those consulting fees for his access while he was speaker, then you’ve got a case, but that’s not the case.
By the way, you do realize that both Romney w/ Romneycare, & Newt got their healthcare ideas in conjunction w/ The Heritage Foundation, maybe the most prestigious CONSERVATIVE think tank around.
Very well said.
The Democrats have a problem with Gingrich. They've used the "Clinton Economy" for years as a weapon to bash Bush and Republicans. But if Gingrich is the nominee, he can creditably (to many voters) claim credit for that as well. He can say the he actually balanced the budget, enacted welfare reform, and did it with a President of the opposite party in the White House, proving that good ideas can get bipartisan support if the right people are in charge. Yada yada....
That's just a tough nut for Obama to crack. For all his flaws, and the sense that he's a "retread", Newt can sell a record that Obama can't come close to matching.
Seems to me you are hyperfocused on whether Newt’s conduct was illegal or unethical.
I don’t see that as the issue and I don’t see that that’s the point of the article. And I certainly don’t have any problem with someone making money off of their expertise or even their political celebrity.
The point of this is the IDEAS. Is someone who has made millions off of being a paid advocate (shill, to some) for big pharma and the health insurance industry — including strongly advocating for an individual mandate — the kind of person that can be trusted as an honest broker of CONSERVATIVE IDEAS about health care reform?
Much more importantly, can you trust the political instincts of someone who says they are conservative, seems to spout conservative ideas, but then for money (BIG money) actually fights for the one thing conservatives — indeed, MOST Americans — want to be free of, the Obamacare mandate and similar?
My suggestion is don’t get caught up in a hypertechnical analysis of whether Gingrich did anything illegal or unethical. That’s the LOWEST BAR. Ask: does Gingrich’s actions demonstrate that his thinking and his actions (IOW, his political instincts) are truly informed and animated by conservatism?
Do they show that Gingrich “gets it” in terms of the zeitgeist in the country and the conservativism of the Tea Party movement?
The answer, I think, is that he gets it, more or less intellectually, but it’s not something coming from his gut.
I have no idea how anyone will behave based on past behavior. There are predictors, I suppose, but who could have seen RR emerging from the Dem party as he did? I thought that answered your questions. I don’t know what past problems will bring to his decisions. He claims to have become a changed man. We will see if he has.
I am not a fortune teller. I could no more tell you how he will react to political situations other than to say I am certain he will not be puzzled by them. He certainly has been there before. Whether I personally will approve won’t matter if he is elected. I will vote for him, today, before anyone else in this field.
Sorry. I left out something. You said “That’s not the choice.”
Assuming, I think, to my statement that I believe it is our choice. Him or Obama. Why am I not allowed to prognosticate about that, but you encourage me to guess at what Newt might do in the future? I believe that is our choice. America will not elect a Mormon. He does not have the votes in a general. We will not elect any of the others because they are not proving themselves to be electable and do not have enough experience. The backlash from this unprepared Kenyan usurper will put that firmly into play as the year wears us down.
I think we are in for a dreadful year.
...and, if you had done that, I would have continued to use “penultimate” incorrectly. How would that have been better? (/rhetorical device)
No worries!
I hear what you’re saying & you make some good points. However, I think you’re missing one of my points. Healthcare reform has been a MAJOR issue in this country for some time now. Not only the libs have been seeking change, so have a few conservatives.
The libs have owned the narrative which has kind of painted the conservatives into a corner. As I understand it, Newt worked w/ The Heritage Foundation on a conservative solution to combat what the libs had coming down the pike. What they came up w/ was certainly less than ideal from a conservative standpoint. They’ve since scrapped the plan. Period.
Newt is a pragmatist. He sees where the nation is in regards to healthcare & has stated he will repeal Obamacare. I have every reasonable expectation he will not go down that road again. He is an idea man. I can relate. The ones that usually come up w/ the best ideas are usually the ones that come up w/ the zaniest ideas in the process. Indeed, it is part of the process. Newt & The Heritage Foundation came up w/ some zany ideas. They threw them out there (also part of the process), & they have been rejected. Back to the drawing board.
I’m ok w/ that. At least they were thinking unlike many conservatives who haven’t even started the deliberative process on how to handle the problem. Even when Obamacare is repealed, the issue isn’t going to go away. We had better have some ideas of our own lest we be caught flat footed again next time.
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.