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
click here to read article
>> 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?
Yes. I watched this video http://vimeo.com/32001208 earlier and thought what a wondrous world we have here. And then I came back down to the ground.
One last thing. I personally find it kind of refreshing that a candidate like Newt would stand up, as he has, & say, hey I was wrong, my mind has changed. He doesn’t make excuses, doesn’t try & cover up, just says, I was wrong.
Can you imagine? And yet there are those here that still want to roast the dude.
Thanks for making my point. Exhibit A
You’re wrong. Just wrong. So, whatever should we do if we have the choice between an avowed Marxist in office instead or an adulterer? If that’s the choice you go with FOUR MORE YEARS OF MARXISM?
So, I stand corrected and am happy you pointed that out to me. Hopefully that will be my penultimate grammatical mistake ...for tonight!
Further more. Please site the FACTUAL evidence that was a LOBBYIST who profited from Obamacare. Also site evidence that Newt was “booted out of congress” rather than declining to run again & resign of his own volition. And then please site the reason for Clinton’s impeachment (hint, it had nothing to do w/ sexual indiscretions, it was about perjury & obstruction of justice).
The left doesn’t care much about facts either.
Thanks for being so nice. I figured you’d say, ‘Who died and made you the grammar nazi?’. Instead you gave me a good laugh—much appreciated!
If you write lies in big, bold fonts does that make them more “scary”?
I think Mitt Romney is being pushed by the left and the right. The left has directed their vitriol everywhere except towards him and it’s obvious that the GOP already picked Mitt many months ago. Every potential candidate has risen up only to be systematically torn back down by both the left wing and right wing media outlets except Mitt Romney. Some of them only needed to be given the rope and they hanged themselves of course but the media has been right there all along ensuring that all obstacles in Mitt Romney’s path are removed. Newt is the last of them and, as expected, both sides are attempting to derail his candidacy. He’s the last of them unless you think Huntsman or Paul is all of a sudden going to surge which seems unlikely to me. I’m going to vote for Newt when the time comes and my hope is that, should he win, he picks Michele Bachmann as his VP.
Many years ago I attended the College of William and Mary. At that time the standard in their English department was a failing grade if a paper contained a single grammatical mistake; including spelling, punctuation etc ...and this was before the days of PC's and spell-check. Subsequently, I had to work very hard to get a solid B; but, I learned more from that experience than from any other course that I have ever taken.
I certainly never said we should pander to the Dem base, nor do I think that.
My point simply is that the Dems are afraid know that Obama is in big trouble. That means they know that some, maybe a lot, of their voters may think about staying home, or if the alternative is seen as Obama-lite, voting for the alternative (the GOP nominee).
The Dems cannot afford to have ANY votes peeled off. So one of the things they would need to make sure of is that the GOP nominee is as unacceptable to the Dem base as they can possibly make him.
I mean: that's Politics 101 anyway. But it's harder to demonize the GOP nominee if, like Romney, he can be made to look, sound and act like Obama-lite.
If it's true that the Dems want Newt as the nominee, that doesn't necessarily mean we shouldn't nominate him. We have to nominate the guy who best, and with the most optimism, articulates his authentic beliefs in conservatism.
I'm just saying thinking about how the general election might roll out from the Dems' point of view can be instructive.
One way to do that is, no matter how you feel about why someone posted something, don't label them with perjorative names, but simply go ahead and substantively address the points in the article.
If you get tired of addressing the points, don't label the posters with perjorative names or get off track discussing over and over again your thoughts on their motives for posting. Just stop posting on those threads. They will go away soon enough.
Not addressing this to you specifically, Confab. A general observation.
He has to balance it (which he’s been doing). Come across as personable and “nice” while keeping just enough of that legitimate anger to keep people thinking about the future.
I like Newt, too, but "we" go back a long way. I've experienced a lot of his "reaching across the aisle" moments and, frankly, am not enthused about going there again or about how Newt's political instincts could affect the nation at this time.
I've been a pretty strong advocate for Newt in a VP slot, but I'm reconsidering even that a little after going down Memory Lane with him again.
Someone posted yesterday he's like the boyfriend you break up with over and over again. Then he shows up at your door with flowers and candy, and you suddenly take him back. I replied that the next step was waking up going WHAT THE HELL WAS I THINKING?? NOW I KNOW WHY I DROP-KICKED THIS "BIPARTISAN" LOSER!!
Not that Newt is a loser, per se, but you get my drift.
My hope is that Newt doesn't start trumpeting this. I can only see that this tack will be damaging if he does.
Problem is that this is exactly what reflects Gingrich's deep-seated POLTICAL INSTINCTS. This is who he is because of when he became a fully-formed politician, 20 years ago.
It's like what they say about Tebow. He (they say) can practice and practice new, more effective mechanics. But when the pressure is really on, when he gets into his zone, he's always going to revert to how he's always thrown the ball. I.e., his instinctive throw.
Seems to be working out for Tebow, despite the naysayers, eh. But I'm not willing to extend the analogy that far to Newt. I don't think his political instincts are ones that would help lead to victory over the nation's problems.
But, some of these folks that continue to cling to hopeless candidates is something else. They're politicians... That's all.
Speaking of the Colts, more on that in a minute.
I look at the presidential election, including the primaries, as a hiring decision. I don't just look at a stack of resumes, and interview records, and say if I "like" one guy, I'm just immediately throwing the other files out.
The more important the hiring decision, the more important it is to keep your options open (keep the files of your top applicants in play) WHILE you drill down into their records and character to make that hiring decision.
Pushing hard on an applicant's weaknesses is a test and an appropriate one. Of course, you have to do that before saying "yes, he's the guy, hire him."
And the reason you don't just immediately throw away your other top applicants' files (the other candidates, Cain if you're leaning toward Newt, Newt if you're leaning toward Cain), is, by golly, you may be drilling down and find something really rotten. But no problem: you're not in love with this guy, you're thinking about hiring him for a job. So if you find a problem, you set his file aside and revisit your other top applicants' files.
As for the Colts:
Here's a story I've told on FR before and I really love it.
Remember when the Colts were thinking about drafting Peyton Manning. They had to choose between drafting Petyon Manning and Ryan Leaf. Of course, looks like a no-brainer now, but at the time it was a difficult decision. The owner said he just went back and forth on it. Problem was these two players both had fantastic football skills and they both had various good things about their football decision skills and instincts.
I remember reading the owner said he was literally laying awake at night trying to decide. Then it came to him: go with the player with the highest level of character and the best work ethic. That was Peyton Manning and the rest is history.
I think that's a lesson for all of life, but it also applies in politics. If you've got two candidates who are about equal in skill (if not equivalent), go with the one with the best character.
I am concerned about this as well.
However, on the flip side, the only candidate, save for maybe Cain or Perry, who won’t be afraid to utter words like “Solyndra” and “Bill Ayers” is NEWT.
Newt can counterattack. The others can’t, or won’t.
There’s a fine line with regards to “reaching across the aisle”.
As far as Newt’s comments, well, the country is a lot more divided now than it ever was, and a lot of swing voters dislike partisanship...so that’s where that comes from.
Back to “bipartisanship.” When you have a divided government, you HAVE to be bipartisan, or nothing will get passed. That’s a reality that many of us refused to face when the budget/debt ceiling debacles were going down. The Democrat-controlled Senate was JUST NOT GOING TO VOTE FOR the GOP bills, no matter how much we jumped up and down.
Bipartisanship, if it means “learning how to schmooze the other side into supporting your bill” is fine. If it means “bend over and surrender” it’s not. The GOP, unfortunately, does the latter too often.
However, when you control both houses of Congress AND the Presidency, well, it’s different now. However, you still have to be able to “sell” your ideas, so you don’t lose the next election.
#2 - that's a lie, he never said that, some interpreted it that way though
#3 - All of which were dropped but one, and that was proven BS later on, too
#4 - that's between him and God, and yeah, it bothers me
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.
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.
As president, he told voters in Iowa, one his first acts would be to reach out to Democrats.
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 Newts 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.
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:
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?
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 “Thats 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)
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.