Posted on 02/06/2007 3:18:16 PM PST by Jean S
Newt/Condi is a dream ticket of mine, but I expect Hillary/Powell, not Hillary/Obama. Powell gives Hillary "gravitas" in military/CiC area, and is a "Republican" who was reluctantly "for the war before he was against it" and was "duped" by George W. Bush, just like Hillary... and with the same qualifications as Condi (NSA, SoS) and then some.
Also, neither Powell nor Condi would run for President in primaries, just not their thing, but VP after primaries are over is a not a long strange trip of entire campaign.
Could be interesting, but Newt/Condi should win because Powell will not be comfortable or natural with either Clinton, and Powell doesn't bring Dems any states while Condi might help bring some fresh independents.
"Newt seems like a good candidate, but I fear he would seem like a has been to most people..."
The same could have been said of Nixon and Reagan.
Dear Jim Robinson,
"The absolute must have positions would be pro-life, pro-family, pro-individual rights, pro-gun, ie, pro-constitution, and for a strong national defense, small government, low spending and low taxes."
I can easily vote for a candidate like this.
The difficulty is that, as you say, at least one or two of the current "electables" don't meet these minimum criteria in some glaring ways.
What that means is that we all have to pull hard to make sure that only an acceptable candidate becomes the nominee.
The question is, what happens if that doesn't happen? What happens if the nominee ISN'T pro-life, pro-family, pro-gun, pro-First Amendment?
"And I have full faith and confidence that whomever gets the Republican nod ALL Republicans and conservatives will close ranks behind him to defeat the wicked witch from hell, Hillary Clinton."
Are you suggesting that we get behind a nominee who doesn't meet the reasonable minimum standards that you've articulated?
Thanks,
sitetest
Newt only added to the negativity of his name and reputation by his own personal negligence that happened during Clintoon-Lewinsky. Though many conservatives may not like it, the public does not like Newt and he is tagged with a hypocrite label. He is damaged goods and it's too bad some conservatives aren't politically savvy enough to know that Newt is nowhere near having a favorable image with the public.
"Unless you have been asleep for the past 25 years you should know beyond a shadow of a doubt that no matter who the GOP nominates they will be trashed by the laimstream media relentlessly. I personally would prefer someone who can debate from a point of knowledge and experience with a good, sound understanding of history."
Odd that people seem to be overlooking the hypocrite label Newt is hindered with. His name is dirt to the public. Funny that conservatives would want to put someone up who went out in such a disgraceful way and the public will not respond favorably to a man who acted as he did during the Clintoon-Lewinsky scandal.
It's not at all odd when you consider who is running on the other side of the aisle.
Any Conservative entering politics today on a national level is going to be willfully subjected to the laimstream media anal probe and subsequently are very likely to have their carreers ruined for something that is all too often just a media creation (think Rathergate). Meanwhile, their counterparts on the other side are given a pass, even though their closets are full of skeletons that should remove them from consideration (think Whitewater, Travelgate, Vince Foster). On this basis, we will never see the "best and brightest" of Conservatives enter politics. Would you?
For whatever reason, Republicans and Conservatives just don't know how to stand up for themselves. I think Newt, despite his baggage, can and does handle the manure thrown at him quite well. He does so from a historical perspective. He comes off as a reasoned, intelligent man. I don't agree with everything about him. Then again, I rarely completely agree with anybody. He is not the second coming and he certainly isn't another Ronald Reagan, but he might be the best we get to step forward for '08.
I think at this time in our history the very survival of our nation depends on having an occupant of the Whitehouse that is a thinker with historical perspective as opposed to a stinker with Socialist/Facist ideology.
If the 'Pubbies nominate another Bob Dole or George Bush, IOW, someone who cannot effectively speak publically, this will be a very, very different country in 10 years.
Elected speaker of the House, author, and now de facto top dog conservative pace setter.
Failure ? Get real.
>You gotta be kidding. Newt is far from a failure. He
>convinced America to dump the Democrats in 94 after 40 yrs
>of them being the majority.
Again, obviously, any old schlep can *get* *elected*. Newt and countless others did. But ...
1) The border is *still* open
2) The national debt is *still* rising
Newt *did* nothing about the above so the country is still disintegrating. Getting elected is squat.
Government still grew, and the border stayed open.
Newt is one smart man, real smart. He has a lot to offer this country.
I agree. Seriously, what can we expect from him? Look at everything that didn't get done with pres. Bush. Will Newt actually make the tough decisions? If so, great! I will vote and campaign for him. I just fear it will be more of the same, and a lot of caving to democrats and minority groups.
(I wonder if Newt would stand up for the border guards on trial??)
Being a Congressmen, or even a Senator is a far cry from having an extreme amount of influence and power over how laws are enforced OR enacted.
The POTUS, on the other hand, has the power of the Veto Pen, and, MOST IMPORTANTLY, the power to appoint the Conservatives necessary to the USSC to get back to constructionalist interpretation, and overturn AND prevent Liberal activist lower court judges from continuing their assault with activist rulings, and NO VOTE OF THE PEOPLE.
Sorry, but I think you'd have a case if Newt was the ONLY conservative option because the GOP should not move to become more liberal but with Hunter in it, I just think he has communication and more on Newt. And it is amazing to think that it slips the mind of what the independents will think with a Newt. It doesn't strike you that along with conservatives the nominee will have to appeal to others and, frankly, Newt has discredited himself. Republicans DO NOT get away with the personal baggage Newt has, and ESPECIALLY since it happened during the Clintoon-Lewinsky mess. You may not like it but the public basically makes it out to be only a sex issue and then asks where the GOP gets off with their Speaker during that time also having sexual relations with his secretary while his wife was at home?! And Newt had more than his chance and failed due to his high negatives. He was Speaker, had his platform and the American people did not like him. He didn't come off well and whether you like it or not, he is not a good prospect to put against Hillary. Newt lacks any sort of military service to have any advantage or make any inroads to the public on the most pressing issue in regards to Iraq and I don't think people who are pushing Newt want to address his faults. Newt would be better off running the GOP, being a strategist, etc. but has had his chance and failed.
All Republicans will not vote for Gingrich, I sure as he!! won't.
Amazing to me that so many Freepers are willing to overlook Newt's trailer trash behavior. How do we know that he's ready to settle down and stop fooling around with other women, maybe its time for a new squeeze? Maybe it's even more thrilling to cheat on his wife when he's on top of his game, like House Speaker or GOP presidential nominee. Possibly this sort of status change acts as an aprodisiac and he can't help but seek a new conquest. Maybe there are a lot more affairs and scandals on this guy just waiting to ooze out of Hillary's FBI files at every turn. What I have already heard is enough for me, but bear in mind there may well be more. I wasn't willing to overlook this kind of behavior in Clinton and I won't overlook it for Gingrich either. JMO, J's wife.
>>
2) He had 4 years to balance the budget, and did nothing. <<>
The house under Newt did a better job with the budget than any other house in recent memory.
>>2) He had 4 years to balance the budget, and did nothing.
>The house under Newt did a better job with the budget than
>any other house in recent memory.
The national debt still only went up under his watch as Speaker. That's NOT leadership.
>Being a Congressmen, or even a Senator is a far cry from
>having an extreme amount of influence and power over how
>laws are enforced OR enacted.
He was House Speaker from 1994 until 1998, during which he demonstrated NO effective leadership in cutting the national debt and closing the border.
Newt is a NWO Globalist. He's unelectable anyway. He's got more baggage than the cargo hold of a 747.
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.