Nationwide Effort Launches to 'Draft Newt' Gingrich to Run for President (FR poll: Gingrich #1)

U.S. Newswire ^ | 1/29/07 | Mon Jan 29, 10:48 AM ET

[gondramB]

>>Newt is a NWO Globalist. He's unelectable anyway. He's got more baggage than the cargo hold of a 747.<<

The baggage is an issue. That's likely why he is not announcing.

Has any elected President since WW2 not been a globalist?

[jer33 3]

Newt may be great at vision casting; however, he is still lacking in integrity. Clinton was a disgrace to our country. Why knowingly place a man who cannot honor his vows before the Lord in high office? Are we settling?

Newt can still be a strong influence, but in another capacity.

[BnBlFlag]

Unfortuneatly no.

[BillyBoy]

The FR poll results are rather interesting. Among REGISTERED freepers, Duncan Hunter is the candidate of choice. Among LURKERS, Gingrich is beating Hunter 2-to-1. Normally the combined numbers don't make much of a difference because registered freepers far outnumber lurkers, but the lurkers are so lopsidedly in favor of Gingrich than the combined totals put him as the solid favorite.

What does this tell me? If I was DUmmie lurking on FR and I was going to vote in one of our presidential "polls", I'd pick the Republican with the most baggage because he'd theoretically be easiest to beat. From the candidates on that list, the choice is obviously Newt. The reverse would true if you went to a DU poll. The rank and file members are divided on Hillary, but if you had the lurkers vote, alot of them would pick Hillary in a Dem poll. Why? There are a bunch of freepers there looking for the most polarizing Dem with high negatives, and Hillary fits the bill alot better than John Edwards.

Newt's a great guy. But he was throughly demonized and destroyed as speaker, and is simply unelectable as a Presidential candidate.

FYI, I voted "undecided" because my top choice at this junction is Tommy Thompson but he's not in the poll despite being an announced candidate. Of the candidates listed, I like Hunter and Tancredo. Neither would be likely to win the nomination, Hunter is a good all-around conservative vote, Tancredo is best to rub it in the RINOs faces and send a message about an issue they're wrong on.

[BillyBoy]

The FR poll results are rather interesting. Among REGISTERED freepers, Duncan Hunter is the candidate of choice. Among LURKERS, Gingrich is beating Hunter 2-to-1. Normally the combined numbers don't make much of a difference because registered freepers far outnumber lurkers, but the lurkers are so lopsidedly in favor of Gingrich than the combined totals put him as the solid favorite.

What does this tell me? If I was DUmmie lurking on FR and I was going to vote in one of our presidential "polls", I'd pick the Republican with the most baggage because he'd theoretically be easiest to beat. From the candidates on that list, the choice is obviously Newt. The reverse would true if you went to a DU poll. The rank and file members are divided on Hillary, but if you had the lurkers vote, alot of them would pick Hillary in a Dem poll. Why? There are a bunch of freepers there looking for the most polarizing Dem with high negatives, and Hillary fits the bill alot better than John Edwards.

Newt's a great guy. But he was throughly demonized and destroyed as speaker, and is simply unelectable as a Presidential candidate.

FYI, I voted "undecided" because my top choice at this junction is Tommy Thompson but he's not in the poll despite being an announced candidate. Of the candidates listed, I like Hunter and Tancredo. Neither would be likely to win the nomination, Hunter is a good all-around conservative vote, Tancredo is best to rub it in the RINOs faces and send a message about an issue they're wrong on.

[Thermalseeker]

I don't think most voters know anything about Newt other than he was a former Speaker. The vast majority of voters can't even name their own congresscritter, much less cite the reputation of someone who has been out of office for a decade. Newt was driven out by the Dims because he was effective, much like Tom Delay. Hassert was ineffective and they left him alone. Newt might make a better Veep, or RNC Chair as opposed to POTUS. That I will agree.

I could support Duncan Hunter, but he's got one long row to hoe. Nobody outside the Conservative movement knows who he is or what he stands for and you know as well as I that the laimstream media isn't going to help promote him one iota.

I'll close with this my FRiend. Hillary Rodham and her ilk scare the hell out of me. She is openly showing herself to be a Socialist and a Facist and her support is growing. I am equally scared that the GOP will not take this seriously and will run whoever is "next in line" like they did with Bob Dole. That miscalculation on the part of the GOP brought us 9/11 among other things.

If the GOP does a repeat, Hillary will be elected, likely to two terms, and after that, this will be a very, very different country. Planned your escape route yet?

[hosepipe]

[ All Republicans will not vote for Gingrich, I sure as he!! won't. ]

Are you a democrat?.. or a RINO?.. same thing..

[jim35]

Whatever. lick Gingrich's boots for all I care. He's unelectable, but go ahead, trot him out there, see what happens. I'm no dem, but I'll stay home, or vote 3rd party before I'll vote for another ego maniac who behaves like Clinton. To me if you act like a cheat and a whore you are not conservative. And as far as him being tough. he sure ran away in a big hurry whem all this crap came out a few years ago. Some fighter!

[hosepipe]

[.. Whatever. lick Gingrich's boots for all I care. He's unelectable, but go ahead, trot him out there, see what happens. I'm no dem, but I'll stay home, or vote 3rd party before I'll vote for another ego maniac who behaves like Clinton. ..]

So Then.. you will not vote for Giuliani, Romney or Mclaim?.. Right?..
Those three DO act like Clinton(in many ways).. they are liberals..
BUT you wouldn't vote for Newt OR see any difference between them and Newt?..

Welcome to earth.. What planet are you from?..

[jim35]

Rudy and Mc Cain, no. Romney, I don't know much about, but he's a Mormon, so probably unelectable anyway? From what I've read, I like Duncan Hunter. Who knows, it's way early yet.

[hosepipe]

[ Who knows, it's way early yet. ]

True..

[ROTB]

>Still, Newt did better on the deficit than any other house
>speaker. The number are complicated but deficit wise the
>Newt years were good years.

If better means the annual deficit decreased year by year, that still means the national debt itself continued to only increase, which is NOT bold leadership that takes a stand for what's right or for principle.

That's country club "get along" "leadership" that would rather stay in power than ruffle any feathers. The result of which is what I've said from the start about Newt's tenure as a "leader":

1) the national debt only increased
2) the borders stayed open

Question: Will #1 and #2 unchecked, destroy this nation yes or no?

If yes, *why* give Newt another shot? He had *4* *years* in a prominent position of leadership and failed to see and call attention EFFECTIVELY to these grave and gathering threats to our national sovereignty.

[ROTB]

>Still, Newt did better on the deficit than any other house
>speaker. The number are complicated but deficit wise the
>Newt years were good years.

If better means the annual deficit decreased year by year, that still means the national debt itself continued to only increase, which is NOT bold leadership that takes a stand for what's right or for principle.

That's country club "get along" "leadership" that would rather stay in power than ruffle any feathers. The result of which is what I've said from the start about Newt's tenure as a "leader":

1) the national debt only increased
2) the borders stayed open

Question: Will #1 and #2 unchecked, destroy this nation yes or no?

If yes, *why* give Newt another shot? He had *4* *years* in a prominent position of leadership and failed to see and call attention EFFECTIVELY to these grave and gathering threats to our national sovereignty.

[traditional1]

"If yes, *why* give Newt another shot? He had *4* *years* in a prominent position of leadership and failed to see and call attention EFFECTIVELY "

That's exactly right, if we choose to ignore the fact that it was his Leadership that swept the Republicans into the Majority after 40 years (elected Speaker 1995-1999) of Democrat rule, and the architect of the Contract With America was forwarded by him, AND he led the House through the Clinton Presidency, IN SPITE of the Liberal MSM bombarding the country with Clinton-Speak and Leftist propoganda.

Now, if you think he should have ignored all that and focused on the Illegal aliens and the Debt, and not accomplished what his Leadership did, THEN you have a case.

Notwithstanding all those accomplishments, I stand by my contention that he is the CLOSEST thing to a Conservative in the list of potential 2008 candidates.

[ROTB]

>>"If yes, *why* give Newt another shot? He had *4* *years*
>>in a prominent position of leadership and failed to see
>>and call attention EFFECTIVELY "

>That's exactly right, if we choose to ignore the fact that
>it was his Leadership that swept the Republicans into the
>Majority after 40 years (elected Speaker 1995-1999) of
>Democrat rule, and the architect of the Contract With
>America was forwarded by him, AND he led the House through
>the Clinton Presidency, IN SPITE of the Liberal MSM
>bombarding the country with Clinton-Speak and Leftist
>propoganda.


>Now, if you think he should have ignored all that and
>focused on the Illegal aliens and the Debt, and not
>accomplished what his Leadership did, THEN you have a case.


>Notwithstanding all those accomplishments, I stand by my
>contention that he is the CLOSEST thing to a Conservative
>in the list of potential 2008 candidates.

All *what* accomplishments? Getting elected is not an accomplishment. Withstanding the tide of the MSM once elected is not an *accomplishment*.


"Closest thing to a conservative?" More conservative than Hunter?

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1781684/posts

I don't know who TO vote for, but I know that Gingrich has let us down on the national debt, the border, his wife, and since this is 2008 we're talking about, and not 1996 or 2000, "Bohemian Grove" will be a household name, and that will kill the Evangelical Christian turnout, which we can't win without.

IF, out of a nation of 300 million, the Republican party can only dig up Newt Gingrich, then this country is finished anyways, AND I DON'T BUY THAT.

This is a bad idea that needs to be killed pronto.

Fresh blood is all I'm asking for.

[traditional1]

"IF, out of a nation of 300 million, the Republican party can only dig up Newt Gingrich, then this country is finished anyways, AND I DON'T BUY THAT."

Well, once you mentioned Bohemian Grove (you left out the CFR, Illuminati, Skull and Bones, Tri-Lateral Commission, etc.), you just eliminated serious consideration of your conspiracy-theory-filled comments.

"IF, out of a nation of 300 million, the Democrat party can only dig up Hillary Clinton, then this country is finished anyways, AND I DON'T BUY THAT."

When has a Presidential election in your lifetime had a "perfect" candidate, espousing and LIVING conservative values????(not including Ronald Reagan, although he had his own minor baggage).

[ROTB]

>>"IF, out of a nation of 300 million, the Republican party
>>can only dig up Newt Gingrich, then this country is
>>finished anyways, AND I DON'T BUY THAT."

>Well, once you mentioned Bohemian Grove (you left out the
>CFR, Illuminati, Skull and Bones, Tri-Lateral Commission,
>etc.), you just eliminated serious consideration of your
>conspiracy-theory-filled comments.

OK. I'll drop his occult connections for the rest of this thread.

You still have not named a Newt accomplishment other than getting himself and others elected, and hanging out for four years.

There's got to be SOMEONE who is conservative who is a proven leader, we can push, who is willing to risk losing, in order to accomplish something. Newt already proved he's more willing to get along than rock the boat.

I don't know who the right man is right now. With the power of the internet, and forums like this, the aggregate of Christians and conservatives online can scour the country for the right man. It can be done. His name could be getting tossed around another thread as we speak.

After 6 years of Bush43 being a sub-par communicator, Newt must seem like a godsend, but he is not. Let it drop. We'll find someone else.

This country would HOWL if we talked about cutting government spending in the amounts needed to pay off the national debt. Newt didn't have the guts in the 90's, what makes you think he has them now that the problem is much much worse?

[ROTB]

I'll give you a Newt accomplishment. The republican congress forced some welfare reform.

[streetpreacher]

Like Nixon and Reagan?

[ROTB]

>I'll give you a Newt accomplishment. The republican congress
>forced some welfare reform.

Even this "accomplishment" has turned into a non-accomplishment.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1791024/posts

We need fresh blood. Newt has failed to do anything but:

1) run up the national debt (8 trillion now)
2) leave the borders open
3) pretend to execute "welfare reform"

Newt was in a position of prominent leadership from 1994 to 1998, and did not *lead* to *solve* these problems.