Skip to comments.Newt Gingrich: A Too-High-Risk GOP Nominee?
Posted on 11/30/2011 8:17:24 AM PST by IbJensen
"Newt Gingrich is a bad bet because he will embarrass the Republican party. He will do so through things he has already said and done, and in ways we cannot predict except to be sure because character will out that they will happen." Mona Charen today in NRO.
Since we are writing for seasoned conservatives and their center-right sympathizers, those who value our common civilization and take pleasure in our common language, let us stipulate up front that we find former Speaker Newt Gingrich both articulate and often instructive on emerging issues, for example, the threat of an electromagnetic-pulse (EMP) attack.
Meet_NewtBy way of contrast, public men and women today often speak in rote phrases they generally champion common-sense solutions and refer to their prospective supporters as hard-working Americans. Such cant not only stifles serious discussion, but, what is almost worse, bores and lacks humor.
We also owe Mr. Gingrich a debt for trying to get the humbug out of the recent debates among contenders for the GOP nomination by calling out some of the debate moderators as the hollow men they often are.
Yet as much pleasure as we may take in following candidate Gingrichs thoughts on everything from the Federal leviathan to German history, we should continue our quest for a genuinely conservative nominee on whose careful judgment we can depend during the coming times of great peril.
Whether it is the sometime Speakers missteps on immigration policy here, on environmentalist overreach here, on Second Amendment matters here, on Fannie Mae and health policy here, on expanding entitlements here, Mr. Gingrich doesnt show much of a conservative core. Some might even see him as more concerned with corporate welfare.
Like governor Mitt Romney, Mr. Gingrich can get into the real detail of government. And he likely has a formidable grasp of the machinery itself of the leviathan we call the Federal Establishment.
This understanding of the nuts and bolts of governing isnecessary to downsize the Federal domestic role - but we dont detect any Gingrich passion to go very far in that direction.
Our first essential: we need a nominee wedded to plain-vanilla conservative principles who can also command sufficient support across the right-center spectrum to unseat president Obama in November 2012.
And if we fail?
Fred Sauer today paints such a picture in his The Death of America in 2015
And to think that this was all triggered by some talking heads on FOX News and others, who beguiled many frustrated Republicans to vote for Donald Trump, the 2012 Independent candidate for president. Trump took 23% vote, mainly from Republicans. The Republican nominee received 30% of the vote, and Barack Obama won the presidency with just 47% of the vote.
Where's the candidate that says he'll cancel his NWO CFR membership and concentrate on the security of this hemisphere?
Sheriff Joe Arpaio has endorsed Rick Perry and when all is said and done I'd rather have Rick for President and Joe for AG!
Gingrich to this day talks of only “a very small number of scientists” that do no believe in man-made global warming. Even with the data-crunching scandals of the alarmists he tries to marginalize the numerous ethical scientists who point to other factors concerning climate change.
Gingrich is still Gingrich and he continues to embarras us.
He can be easily, brought up to speed on this one. After Election. . .
Apparently, at one time, Newt Supported Donald Barwick, the man Obama put in charge of health care rationing.
Three months ago Newt was considered a joke with enough baggage - personal and political - to fill United Airlines lost and found. He is still the same man; he just had a couple of good debate appearances.
Character problems didn't appear to have any negative effects for Billy Jeff or BHO!
??? aren't we facing great peril now, today, with this Socialist Marxist as our President?
Mr. Gingrich is an admitted "Moderate" with strong leanings towards Conservatism not Socialism. The MSM and talking heads will and have misquoted him...listen carefully to his words, common sense is heard AND neither those wedded to the ways of Washington bureaucracy left or right want this "thinker" in charge. I find it more than interesting that so many, not just in the GOP, but the MSM are pushing Mitt Romney who is about the same as Obama in many areas.......
“He will do so through things he has already said . . .”
But Mittens will not. Glad we have that straight.
Four more years of Obama is too high risk
Newt doesn’t have any core conservative principles. If he did, these actions would not be cluttering up his record:
1. Individual Mandate.
2. Global Warming
5. “The Era of Reagan is Over!”
7. Limited Amnesty
8. Voted to create Department of Education
9. Voted for 1986 Amnesty
10. Called Ryan’s plan “Right-Wing Social Engineering”
These are not the actions of a conservative, but the actions of a professional politician.
These are not the actions of a conservative leader who actually believes in the conservative message and the issues involved including a limited federal government, but the actions of a calculating, finger-in-the-wind, politician.
If Newt is the answer, we’re in trouble.
Gingrisch is still the guy who brought us the Contract with America and Welfare Reform. He does possess some positive qualities that conservatives can point to.
I’ll take Newt over Mitt every time.
Jesus Christ is not running for President this time around, so we have to pick Obama or one of the flawed Republican candidates. For sure, Newt has some spots on his record but compared to Obama - of whom we know little - he is pure as the driven snow.
Newt is very capable and could be one of the great presidents that saved the Union.
I support Newt 100%. Believe he will be one of the best presidents ever. There is NO ONE running that is as intelligent and can claim the great accomplishments he obtained as Speaker of the House. First balanced budget ammendment since 1969 and the republican revolution. Lessons have learned and imo at this time..experience and knowledge count. Not the time to elect someone who needs “on the job training” GOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO NEWT
I too remain intrigued by our own side, who were scandalized by anything that had Rick Perry’s name on it, having to do with illegal immigration and policy. Rick Perry simply set the table. He announced the realities of resolving the problem, and the other candidates are now all seen pulling up a chair. Now comes the very same fundamental approach attached to every other candidate attributed to them in their own quotes, on the record, in video, or horse back. This includes besides Perry; Bachman, Romney, Gingrich and Cain.
It is extraordinary to observe the purists now dance on the head of a pin stepping on their tongue to excuse their candidate for the very same pronouncements, but for the parting of their hair.
I believe it is a given that anyone willing to run for president has an inordinate amount of arrogance and clinically proportioned ambition in the first place to do it. Yes, they want to know if they stand a chance first, but to actually run, to me anyway, tells us everything we need to know about them—that they think entirely too much of themselves to be ever and always completely pure, therefore, any one of them can be unfaithful or even corrupted.
These candidates have simply seen a pathway to enhance their resume, make millions off the people, form PACS which gives them power to pad the coffers of other politicians, to gain even more power, to make TV appearances, write books that sell, and result in even more personal cash for homes, investments, lifelong financial security and what have you. Need I say more?
If this is a given, more fools will enter races who feign seriousness, but who know actually nothing more about governance, or history, or international affairs than you and I, and we are not running for President of the United States.
Rick and Newt are not much different in ambition from any other candidate, but they do drag around conservative bono fidis that is far and away above the rest, with accomplishments in long term seats of power and policy commitment that reeks with conservatism and capitalism. They both have fought rather broad battles on the field for a very long time, but Newt has really wrestled the beast.
I believe a long record matters more than celebrity, ghost writers and handlers feeding candidates smart mouth sound bites to rouse the crowds, but with the depth and national experience as thin as a piece of paper.
If Newt is the answer, were in trouble.
Indeed it’s another Bob Dole repeat.
From the article: “This understanding of the nuts and bolts of governing is necessary to downsize the Federal domestic role - but we dont detect any Gingrich passion to go very far in that direction.”
Rick Perry’s call to put Congress on a part-time basis will cause the entire DC establishment, including many of the Romney and Gingrich supporters in DC, to align against him.
So, which side are we on: Perry’s or the DC Establishment?
Easy choice, really.
To add to it, I would say that any Senator that runs for POTUS should immediately be taken to the loony bin. Being a US Senator is the best job in the entire world.
Perry is the best candidate.
Newt and Romney would amount to poison lite.
Romney has the best rating on illegals buy Numbers usa. But is he for real on this issue? He appears to be the most electable. But can he really seize the moment. Experience shows he would be the most likely to see the big picture. But, he has a history of sabotaging himself. David Broder said he was a man of towering strengths and glaring faults. Maybe after being out of electoral politics and after some reflection over the years he can overcome his past strengths. But then again I wish we had some more alternatives. Most of the early primaries are closed to new entrants but then again this might be the year for someone who is good to enter and still win.
For me it’s either Cain or Perry.
I don’t trust Newt.
Not only is there all that baggage we already know about, I am gut-deep sure there are other things that we do NOT know about, but which opposition research has located and are carefully saving for use should he get the nomination.
No, I don’t know about anything specific — although there were a lot of rumors being thrown around by the Dems back when Monica first splurted on the national consciousness — but I still think the risk is too high.
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.