Posted on 11/18/2011 3:54:43 PM PST by jageorge72
Newt Gingrich's stumble out of the campaign gate -- causing him to lose his top advisors to Rick Perry -- might well be the best thing that has ever happened to his political career. That, along with his debate performances and a handful of other circumstances, explains why the former speaker of the House is now surging in the polls and why it is likely to continue.
And yes -- those are the words of one who has written Newt off for good on more than one occasion. And for what surely seemed like good reasons.
But those reasons seem long past now, as the former speaker has proven himself a far superior advocate to anyone else running of what it is that animates us on the conservative side. And it is this ability -- combined with our craving for someone who has this ability in light of the inarticulate Bush-McCain years -- that has convinced many to take a second, third, fourth, or fifth look at a man many of us had given up on. Yes, we know that Newt has not always acted like a conservative, and yes, he tends toward being an incessant government tinkerer. Yes, some of those marital issues are troubling, as was NY-23 and the David Gregory/Paul Ryan thing and most of all...the Pelosi global warming thing. Yes, we get all that.
Yet, even so, the daydream of Gingrich debating Obama on a stage bigger than merely the presidential contest is something more and more Tea Party folks and others are publicly fessin' up to sharing. Admit it: you were giving Newt a second look long before you dared say so out loud or post it on a message board.
(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...
I bet Newt means this:
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.
If you elect Newt; don’t come crying when he makes decisions you don’t like. It will happen.
It’s to bad the country lets the wrong people vote for them.
_______________-——_______
You know what, they’re all going to let us down at some point.
VIGILANCE !
Great article & dead on indeed! Here’s a couple of things in the article that really made a lot of sense:
“By contrast, we are also reminded why we have dreaded every presidential debate since Reagan-Mondale. We haven’t had a yes! moment in these things since Reagan, and we desperately need one.”
Aint that the freaking truth!
“But it goes deeper than just those moments. The campaign debates of 2012 will be definitive moments in our national conversation. I think many instinctively know this. We will have on display some spokesperson for conservatism debating Obama and the Occupy America vision. It will impact perhaps every race in 2012. And many are now saying out loud what they’ve been whispering for months.”
This is the thing I’ve been wondering a lot about lately. Who will have the best chance of coat tails? This may be as important as the presidential election itself. It’s imperative we retake the senate & add to the house.
Regardless of his “baggage”, Newt will be on conservative point for the entire cycle & will not waiver or lose focus. His message will be the conservative message & one that the entire party can rally around, including those running for congress. Newt will set the standard for the rest of the party to follow.
Cain is the only other candidate who could accomplish this, however, only on domestic issues. Cain will also have a hard time navigating the landmines set forth by the MSM. Newt knows the landmines & thus I feel will have longer coat tails.
Gingrich/Cain? Wow!
I did not mean likability is the only factor, it is just more important than many others, of course. My guess is 75% of voters do not spend more than 2 to 3 hours TOTAL studying various candidates on issues before they vote. People visiting sites such as this are much more informed. But most voters are not.
I did not mean likability is the only factor, it is just more important than many others, of course. My guess is 75% of voters do not spend more than 2 to 3 hours TOTAL studying various candidates on issues before they vote. People visiting sites such as this are much more informed. But most voters are not.
The truth of the matter is that NO Republican candidate is good enough for many of the types who inhabit FR. These are people who brook not even the slightest hint of a shading of difference between their worldview and that of others. If even a miniscule difference exists, the other person immediately becomes not just someone with whom there is a disagreement, but becomes a viscerally hated enemy. Problem is, that kind of absolutely perfect meshing of two people's opinions to beyond the nth degree simply doesn't exist in this world. Probably not in the next either.
Yet, in perpetual search for such an impossible candidate, too many people are willing to toss aside important considerations for the first Joe or Jane who comes along and mouths what they want to hear.
Newt won’t surge. He’ll become the anti Romney, anti Obama candidate. People will vote for him because he’s not those two and the country will continue it’s slide into the abyss. Newt is the poster boy for what is wrong with the federal government and the GOP.
-— ==== ====
Newt is greatly gifted as an eloquent speaker and the best debater I have ever seen. People are flocking to him now because of these skills. He is so good, in fact, they are willing to overlook tons of baggage. Truth be told most people have a lot of baggage.
What’s the evidence for saying the debate stage matters more than ever?
Maybe in the primaries this cycle, but I sure don’t see that in the general.
Why? Because Obama is the most polarizing President in history.
No one who supports Obama/Dems is going to give a rat’s behind how Obama performs in the debates. They are going to vote for him.
No one who supports defeating Obama by voting for the anyone-but-Obama GOP nominee is going to give a rat’s behind how the GOP nominee performs in the debates.
And if the argument is based on the mushy middle — well, we all know where that gets you.
And first, there just aren’t many people who aren’t in one camp or the other. The entire nation has been galvanized by Obamacare and the economy; most people have decided whether they want Obama in or out in 2012, that much they know.
Anyone who hasn’t made up their mind yet on that question just isn’t paying attention. And people who aren’t paying attention now, sure as hell are not the types to watch presidential debates and make up their mind based solely, or even mostly, on those.
Listen closely and most people pushing the debates as a reason for a particular candidate just want the sheer joy of watching Obama maybe get his butt kicked.
That might be a fun spectacle, but it’s not going to change a significant number of votes, IMO.
In fact, if Newt whups up on Obama, it’s likely to increase voter intensity in his base, particularly among those Dems who absolutely HATED Newt back when he was Speaker.
There are a lot of those Dems still around. They’re going to have the same reaction as Republicans would if, 15 years from now the Dems nominated Nancy Pelosi. They think we would forget and not be motivated by how we regarded her during her tenure as Speaker?
>> The truth of the matter is that NO Republican candidate is good enough for many of the types who inhabit FR >>
And many of them hide behind their supposed Biblical principles to justify that attitude as well. Which is ironic, since almost everyone used by God was deeply deeply flawed.
Try making a list of all the position’s on different issues that have been taken by gramnesty and mccain, then make a list for newt and see where the differ. You will find they are three birds of a feather, reach across the isles and compromise. They compromise and you pay, wonderful.
Can I steal that and put that in an email?
I too would love to see Newt “shred” Obama, but that won’t get him the nomination.
I have donated to Newt. I like Newt. I just don’t think Newt can win the nomination let alone the Presidency.
Newt has one fatal flaw: he is an intellectual and intellectuals are simply not very inspiring or likable.
I don’t get the “Newt is a RINO” talk. He is not a RINO, he led the Republicans back to the majority in the House after 40+ years. He is a DC insider and a serial adulterer, and that will hurt him with some segments of the population, but his “likability” factor is what will hurt him with most.
So while I am all in if Newt gets the nod, I will be shocked if he pulls out the upset in Iowa, New Hampshire or South Carolina.
I think that's mythology.
Fifty years ago it was very difficult, compared to today, to get a lot of information on candidates or even to see them speak.
Today every little podunk stop a candidate makes is filmed and put up on YouTube. The point is: the more information there is already out there -- and there is exponentially more than ever in the last half-century -- the less any one event makes an impact.
And, as I said upthread, particularly in this cycle, I think the presidential debates are not going to change a single vote. By that time, the country will be even more polarized than it already is, and people will be even more sure that they want Obama out or they don't.
So, you call some fellow freepers fools. And which of the candidates is your perfect choice again? To whose credit do we apply the negatives you’re purposely generating?
I fail to see how Newt is an improvement over Mitt. Both believe in government as the solution. Newt only talks good, but his heart is with Pelosi and Hillary and other government policy wonks.
Also, the Dems, like the rest of the nation, and especially the Liberal punditry, have already accepted and digested the fact that Obama is actually a terrible speaker and an empty suit debater.
The expectations on him are going to be extremely low.
So not only will no one care (except, as if often pushed, for the entertainment value), no one will even expect Obama NOT to get whupped by whoever the GOP nominee is, even if they put Spongebob in the chair.
Let’s say Obama gets crushed by GOP Nominee. Afterwards, Chris Matthews still says . . . what?
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.