Skip to comments.Newt had his chance, but he blew it: Why Gingrich won’t earn the 2012 GOP presidential nomination
Posted on 11/23/2011 5:22:45 AM PST by MNJohnnie
I was only 15 in 1994, when Newt Gingrich experienced his last great moment. (Well, before this one, where hes surging in the polls, with his campaign having figured out how to run for President.) So I dont really remember Newts glory days.
I have interviewed him on many occasions, however, as far back as 2006 and as recently as last month, and every time we talk, Im struck by how smart he is. Despite that, I cant get past the nagging voice in my head telling me that no matter how good he would be at running the country, he doesnt deserve to.
Call me a square, but Newts past mistakes occupy both columns: character and politics. From his ugly romantic entanglements to his flirtation with environmentalism to his questionable relationship with Freddie Mac, bad decisions and lapses in judgment have been too frequent for a man of such obvious intelligence.
And yet, for all his mistakes, Newt remains startlingly unembarrassed, which makes those mistakes even less palatable. Though arrogance and a lack of shame characterize Capitol Hill, Im suspicious of a guy whos had so many public errors, and is so untroubled by them.
(Excerpt) Read more at nydailynews.com ...
The cracks have been there all along. His supporters just demand we ignore them.
“Hey, guys......someone else is in the lead now who’s not Cain....DESROY THEM!!!!!!”
Newty is fundamentally a creature of DC. He was kicked out for his Contract with America.
I don’t click on that dangerous website. Is she talking about last night?
He basically said that he expects that 50% would go back of their own volition, but ( paraphrasing) was it "realistic to want to see people, neighbors, who had been here for 25 years, put down roots..sent packing."
Bachmann and Mitt jumped on this, called it amnesty...
Whether or not one agrees with Newt, there's one questio that I'd like him, or maybe one of his supporters, to answer:
That other 50% of illegals he mentions, those here for years. There is no way that they vast majority of them could have stayed, put down roots, without doing something illegal to obtain a false identity, social security #..whatever. IOW..a crime...an overt act. Should they, according to Newt's vision, be deported?
Yep. Though Newt may be the only adult in the GOP room at times, he’s still a RINO. I’m glad Bachmann went after him. Too bad the Texas. Governor didn’t do the same.
Doesn't "deserve to"? What exactly has this to do with anything? If I am hiring someone to do a very important job for me (and what is more important then correctly overseeing the operation of the country?), I want the man best able to do the job. The author makes this look like some sort of an award for good behavior handed to a politician, without regard for the enormity of the responsibility of the job and whether the winner has the ability to perform.
Yes, everybody knows MNJohnnie’s agenda, but it is Newt who is in the news because he is the alleged frontrunner who just had a Rick Perry moment last night.
Not the Contract for America-— in fact that propelled him to the leadership. He resigned before being kicked out due to his questionable ethics. Republicans want better of their leaders.
Never forget that Gingrich supported some very liberal stuff since leaving office.
I do not support Newt for President but it's hilarious how most of the Cain supporters are broken hearted Palin backers. They trash every candidate so Cain, who has got to be one of the worst candidates ever invented, can look better. These are the same people who would mercilessly destroy anyone who questioned Palin just a few month ago. Crazy crazy crazy.
Sorry Newt, that is unacceptable. A real conservative wouldn't consider amnesty to illegals in any way, shape or form. Right there, we know that his carefully crafted image as a conservative is phony. America does not need a fake conservative.
Newt Gringo the compassionate one with a heart.
“Though Newt may be the only adult in the GOP room at times”
Please, it’s still too early for a belly laugh. I know 18 year-olds who behave more like an adult than Newt Gingrich.
I think, although at first swayed by Newt’s comments, I now just think it skirts the obvious CURRENT BIT TIME PROBLEM of the millions who have recently come here.
And the problem of the rule of law.
Illegal is illegal. And if someone has been here for 25 years, are they going to pay back taxes, reimburse taxpayers for all the services they’ve used over those 25 years?
How many have actually been living here for 25 years illegally? Weren’t most who came 25 years ago actually given citizenship throught amnesty signed by Reagan?
You Krishnas accusing anyone of trashing other candidates is a hoot. You and your ilk are just mad because the Palin people didn’t fall behind Perry.
He acts like he is willing to take the consequences for his position on amnesty. OK, just what are those consequences?
Wow, he might not win the nomination.
He can go right back to milking his Beltway influence - a job where he does not have to compete with illegals and where illegals will not drive his wages down like has been done with meatpacking, construction and many other jobs.
He can afford a home in a nice gated community so he doesn't have to live next to any illegals.
He can go to a top-tier hospital that is not bogged down with treating illegals as mandated by the fedgov.
And the tax bite to pay for government bennies for illegals is just a tiny nibble out of his pay, as opposed to a big, wet bite for a regular working stiff.
And that is my point entirely - Newt only sees possible consequences to his own ambitions - he has no clue (like most Beltway types) as to how his self-inflated sense of humanity impacts those of us in the real world outside the Beltway.
And that is why he should never be the nominee.
100% spot on, dirtboy.
>> Yes, everybody knows MNJohnnies agenda, but it is Newt who is in the news because he is the alleged frontrunner who just had a Rick Perry moment last night. <<
That’s a pretty accurate statement. I would call it a semi Perry moment. Of course, it begs one question and muddies another truth.
The question is, do we really think under any circumstances that there will be any “rounding up” of illegals for the purpose of deportation? Of course not, under any President.
And the main point it muddies? That we must start by stopping the bleeding: CLOSE THE BORDER. If we don’t do that, then nothing else matters.
And on that issue, I think they all agree. So until that happens, nothing about what happens later is even going to effect our lives.
Can you imagine —we elect a Republican house and senate, begin to try to enforce the laws on the books, return power to the states ...and President Gingrich tries to stop it all so Jose who’s been here for 25 years can continue to stay here illegally?
So what’s Newt going to do about the ones who have only been here 10 years or less? What are the details about that situation? He’d better come out and clarify it, or he’s lost my vote.
I can't wait until Cain is actually on the hot seat to state soundly his position on deportation of illegal immigrants. My thought is he will reiterate Newts point to a T and you and others will twist yourself into a knot defending it. That's ok by me.
Cain should be judged on his lack of knowledge on issues and his desire to be voted for because of his advisers.
I saw one Cain guy suggest a Cain/Newt ticket. Why? Why not just vote for Newt if that's the case?
The question of deporting illegals with long residence and US-born families is, as a political question, resolved. It will never happen, for reasons both good (we are a kind people) and bad (business likes illegals).
I am a Newt supporter, and it aggravates me to see him slammed for this, because the intense border control supporters have lost election after election after election, even in the districts which should be most favorable to their cause.
THERE IS NOT AND NEVER WILL BE A MAJORITY FOR DEPORTATION OF MOST ILLEGALS.
I think, on the whole, that this is a bad thing, because it is a symptom of weakness in our culture - but just because I think that doesn't mean we should nominate a man certain to lose because of a pro-deportation stance.
A position to the right of Obama on this question can attract majority support.
A position favoring deporting the pool boy and the maid, together with their US citizen children, is a certain loser, and this has been demonstrated in elections in California, Arizona, Colorado, etc, and it has been demonstrated many times over many years.
It has taken the better part of a century of massive Liberalism in this country to get us where we are today. We need a center right agenda and at least several decades to get us back on track. Newt would start to get us back on track. Bachman would get us back on track, Perry would start to get us back on track, so would Cain. Romney would be the least effective of the field at returning us to a more Constitutional based Federal Government.
Newt knows DC and he knows how to move legislation. He would be fine. What we can not afford is another four years of the nightmare we are living now.
Lots of people, including those here on FR, tend to believe that the natural state of man and society is that of freedom. Nothing could be further from the truth. We are now on the precipice of falling into tyranny, Obama would love to further erode our liberties. Newt would move us away from the brink, as would most of the Republican field.
Make no mistake, ALL our candidates will be blasted by the mainstream media and many on the right. S.E. is a little more boobs than brains, somewhat right and mostly wrong on what she perceives to be the best course. Two debates with Newt and Obama is toast. If he is able to jawbone Obama into seven Lincoln/Douglas style debates Obama will be buried in a land slide. Now is not the time to beet ourselves. It is time to push forward and defeat Obama, before it is too late.
This leaves us with either President Romney or Hussein.
Guess that makes it easier to watch Cain deconstructing.
>> THERE IS NOT AND NEVER WILL BE A MAJORITY FOR DEPORTATION OF MOST ILLEGALS.
A position to the right of Obama on this question can attract majority support.
A position favoring deporting the pool boy and the maid, together with their US citizen children, is a certain loser, and this has been demonstrated in elections in California, Arizona, Colorado, etc, and it has been demonstrated many times over many years. >>
You are right on that - which means the only issue is what do we do with the border. Next are the entitlements the illegals receive. Then there’s the criminal activity, and those should be deported. If we fixed those 3 issues, 98% of the problems would be gone.
And all the candidates know that. None of them will even think of starting a deportation campaign. Illegal immigration, hate to break it to you, is merely a misdemeanor. We may not like that, but that is the law.
This problem is where it is due to 50 years of a weak border and an awful Mexican economy. Fix the border, and it will unwind itself over maybe ten years and will do so without much cost.
Good ‘common sense’ post. Thanks.
Nope, you've got this one wrong. This is not "liberal destruction of a conservative" ... this is SELF DESTRUCTION! There's a stark distinction.
Hey, you guys are the ones claiming Perry is the immigration expert. If he didn’t take Newt to task last night, that’s another missed opportunity for Perry to set himself apart. As a Perrywinkles, YOU should know that.
Bachman, Perry, Cain, Newt,...
Not crazy, pretty normal if you remember the 2008 primary. Is it time to cycle back around or will everybody just wait for Palin to tell them what to do?
Maybe someone should get the commies view on the illegals and match it up with the repubs. Also why should the people standing in the legal line and waiting years be punished vs someone who just walks across the border and takes up with govt benefits etc. I know of a legal immigrant who waited 7 years before he could have family join him.
I'm amazed that you still have the arrogance to show your face around here after that shameful, childish act.
That’s exactly why the so called ‘compassionate conservatives ‘ named Newt, Romney and Perry can shove it.
So Newt has begged the illegal immigration question and muddied the truth. No, he has done way more than that. he just disqualified himself for the nomination. He just undid all the slow progress he has made since he was written off as a factor last summer.
I’m going to quote what dirtboy said about it in another thread, and leave it there.
“This one sentence shows all that is wrong with the Beltway types.
OK, Ginrich is willing to ‘take the heat’ - but what does that mean?
Wow, he might not get the nomination. Big whup. He goes back to raking in the bucks from his Beltway influence peddling - which also gives him the money to be insulated from the consequences of this country pandering to illegals.
He makes enough money to live in a gated community.
He can go to a high-end hospital not overwhelmed by treating illegals, as mandated by the fedgov (all in the name of humanity, mind you).
And he makes enough to where taxes needed to pay for welfare and bennies for illegals don’t take a big proportional bite out of his paycheck.
So in other words, he is oblivious to the impact that his perceived ‘humanity’ has on working stiffs.
And that is EXACTLY what is wrong with him as GOP nominee.”
Agree with you 100%. Deportation of folks who committed a single misdemeanor (yes, according to code, it’s about the same crime as a speeding ticket) years ago but who have been productive folks since then will not be deported REGARDLESS of who is President.
I could see the case for making it a felony, but it’s simply not. So it is what it is. And I like living in reality. And other reality is, the logisitics of doing so would far outweigh the benefits.
Seal the border. Kick out those arrested for drug, traffic, other crimes. Stop the hand outs. Do that, and the problem is mostly solved.
But mass deport? Really?
Bachmann won’t. Cain won’t. Mitt won’t. Just won’t happen. Newt should have said that, but he didn’t and he will pay some kind of price for it. Anyone who says otherwise is ignoring reality.
Newt has that trait in common with his old political sparring partner -- Bill Clinton. Drove me crazy when Clinton just blithely went forward, but it made his supporters love him all the more.
Yeah, I guess. As much as I abhor this development with Newt, there is no perfect candidate. We just better accept this fact to be true about each one of these Republican candidates.
Newt could also just be plainly playing politics to garner some portion of the hispanic vote.
Just to be safe, we better elect as many Tea Partiers as possible to Congress.
Thanks for rescuing MNJohnnie from breaking the rules, however; in the picture you posted, those two cancel each other out.
No different than Perry's “heartless” definition of Conservatives who want to protect the sovereignty of our Country and enforce the Law.
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.