Posted on 11/20/2006 12:05:27 PM PST by do the dhue
I would vote for Newt.
Bigger prize at stake
You know what else is infuriating? Many of else have been sounding this alarm for years. And most of the time, we get push back saying it is too early to talk about 2008.
Rubbish.
It is never too early.
By the time it is time to start talking, it's wayyyyyyyy to late to try to figure out who is going to be our candidate.
So, here's what we have to choose from: McCain (who hates the Constitution and hates interrogations), Giuliani (who will claim that he can make the trains run on time...which all things being equal is good....not sure that he has much to say about the freedom of those of us using the trains, however), Romney (hard to miss the irony of the evangelical favorite being the Mormon from Massachusetts who was until recently pro-choice).
The next tier of candidates are a bunch of people not running: Newt, Barbour, Sanford, Rice, and a few others.
Of all of those above, only the southern governors have a consistent conservative track record without all the personal drama. And, again, they are not running.
Newt, as noted, is also not running...but in reality...he's in a third category of running/not running.
And right now, he is unquestionably the most conservative of the candidates (unless Romney really runs hard right).
Sigh.
We are in a pickle.
It's like 1974 all over again. This time, however, there is no Governor Reagan to look to for the future.
I'd vote for him.
I'm with you on Tancredo. Even if he can't win he can drive the discussion in an important direction. Who can win?
Well. I'm for Newt more than anyone else because he has intelligence & foresight & focus. This corrupt "Two-Party Cartel" which I have railed against for yrs now & if you haven't seen that it, is bought & paid for by the elites, who will not ever allow another Reagan to sneak in & is NOT going to allow a true conservative to get elected. Since this is a cartel you will continue to get worse candidates each election. Everyone of these front runners have garbage. Most are compromise so that when the real issues such as SCJ are nominated they can call the shots by blackmail. Newt would be as good as anyone to guide this dysfunctional government - both factions. BTW, my impression, if the story was told correctly you will find that Newt went to the hospital to sign the finalizing papers of something that had occurred far in the past. ( vision this - Newt explaining a totally rational concept & The Hildabeast - the smartest women in America - starts Jacklin & throws that high pitched tantrum)
I was speaking purely from a moral point of view on marriage.
We'd be hypocrites to elect Newt if we believe what Bill Clinton did was wrong. And I did believe he was wrong, and I'm not going to be a hypocrite about it.
Frankly, I can't think of anything more dispicable than leaving one's spouse while she has cancer. Newt has left two wives.
Bill and HIll might have a "marriage of convenience," but it can still be spun that they are together despite his skirt chasing/adultery. Newt dumps his wives.
And do you really think that the bloggers are going to leave that alone? No, every last ugly detail is going to be talked about for months. Yuck. Let sleeping dogs lie. (Pun intended.)
Be spacefic now or else jump on the team!
I don't disagree with anything in your post. I have a pretty low threshold for moral qualifications (not like we have any choice in that regard), so I think Newt's plusses outweigh his minuses.
He is certainly as big a think as we have seen in American politics for a few decades. If elected, I have no doubt that he would be a great President. (But it would be nice if he had Romney's family values. Or for that matter, Obama's...as much as it disgusts me to say that).
Love our Prez, but it would be some relief to have a real thinker and debater for our side this time around."
You are very polite and obviously a very decent person....
Such as what lets get specific sir? Exactly what do you mean?
bless you Mr Marx! I applaud your post and totally agree.
"SSTOP SHOOTING OUR WOUNDED" You guys better understand something Jesus Christ was the last perfect person to walk Planet Earth!!!!
It continues to amaze me how people are unaware that Newt is a hated buffoon to so much of the American populace he's unelectable.
Again, hate to be a broken record, what a few people on FR PERSONALLY think of a candidate is irrelevant; you have to have a concept of the general feeling of the public (this includes a great many people with very different views on life than you) towards a candidate.
clarify your post!
This corrupt "Two-Party Cartel" which I have railed against for yrs now & if you haven't seen that it, is bought & paid for by the elites, who will not ever allow another Reagan to sneak in"
One thought, though.
I believe what Reagan did is still doable. The party is pretty much back where it was in 1974. Giuliani = Nixon....Romney = Romney....McCain = Agnew (no, wait, that's not fair to Agnew). How about McCain = Rockefeller, but without Rockefeller's good qualities.
In any event, what Reagan did (united all those conservatives who were disenfranchised by the 2 party cartel), is still very doable...but only doable IF we find one or preferably many who can do what he did, that is, who can communicate, articulate...and actually believe in something.
With the right folks out front, the party of Reagan can rise again. We saw a bit of in in 1994. It can be done...problem is, we have no Reagan (except Mike Pence, who is not well known enough).
George W. Bush?
Probably true.
Keep in mind, though, that Newt could probably win most of the red states. The D will win all the blue states.
Which means it comes down to Ohio, yet again. (Colorado is also gone, incidentally).
The question is: how would Newt do against Hillary in Ohio?
Ohio showed in this last election that it is not red...and is tinkering with insanity. But....is it really Hillary country?
I'm not quite prepared to write it off yet.
Enjoyed your comments, as always. Rudy will be the 2008 GOP nominee, in a landslide, because of ONE issue..security/terrorism. When W was inaugurated, 9/11 didn't exist in anyone's mindset. Events as yet unseen/imagined will shape the world in the next 2 years, and also the nominations. To think otherwise is the ultimate act of hubris. The 2008 ticket will be Guiliani/Gingrich..or, among us friends, "Rudy/Newtie"..as as for the obvious marital "issues" that both gentlemen possess, well, when the Dem ticket is headed by Clinton, as they say down south, "That Dog Don't Hunt"
Newt has the clearest vision for where the Republican party needs to be headed. No matter if he "runs" for anything....Republicans could do a lot worse (KarLaRazaRove) than to listen to what Newt has to say.
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.