Gingrich Won't Run
By California Yankee Posted in 2008 — Comments (49) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich has decided not to run for president.
Gingrich recently said he would run if at least $30 million was contributed to his campaign by October 21.
Gingrich, 64, has hinted for months that he would join the 2008 presidential race if he determined no other candidate appeared able to take on the Democrats in 2008. I guess Newt didn't get that $30 million.
« Dueling June Obama fundraising claims? — Comments (2) | Tonight on Fox News — Comments (2) »
Gingrich Won't Run 49 Comments (0 topical, 49 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »
When in focus, he's a force with which to be reckoned; uncontrolled, he sometimes seems disconnected.
The problem here, I think, is that it is hard for a man like Gingrich to follow a script.
Somehow Republicans will have to win the White House without our Savior Newt!
This guy needs to shut up, publish some policy papers, and forget his dream about being President. He would never be able to win a nationwide campaign. His unelectability has a lot to do with his personal life and the poor decisions he has made in the past.
I honestly cannot think of a candidate Democrats would absolutely salivate at campaigning against more than Newt.
Regardless of how good his conservative ideas may be, what good would it do if he were absolutely thrashed in an election?
Also, his ideas really aren't that innovative, they're the same ideas conservatives have been pushing for a long time. Welfare reform was hardly Newt's original brainchild.
His latest "mission" that he loves to tout, electronic health care records, is a meaningless policy that no one cares about.
I really don't see a platform that Newt represents that one of the other Republican candidates have ignored.
Berating the guy for running for wanting to be President on the day he announces he's not running, doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me.
HTML Help Central for Red Staters
Reality: Thompson/Romney Dream: Santorum/Watts.
Neil, this "front-page" thingy has just gone to your head.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.
I'm also being such a ridiculously nitty stickler, that I've edited posts to correct gross html errors that broke the page!
HTML Help Central for Red Staters
Reality: Thompson/Romney Dream: Santorum/Watts.
I did preview...
HTML Help Central for Red Staters
Reality: Thompson/Romney Dream: Santorum/Watts.
No, Neil. your HTML was flawless, as usual. I didn't mean for the reply to be read otherwise.
Nah, I was just commiserating on HTML fixes, closing tags. BUT NOT YOURS!
Whew, I was scared though. The way you said that... I had to wonder :-)
HTML Help Central for Red Staters
Reality: Thompson/Romney Dream: Santorum/Watts.
"what good would it do if he were absolutely thrashed in an election?"
Two words: Barry Goldwater. Goldwater lost in what was the largest landslide in history (until Reagan came along and Carter lost worse), but his ideas affected us for generations. Goldwater was an ideas man, and so is Newt. It would be nice if one of our current candidates was an ideas man as well. Perhaps you guys can shed some light on this: why is it not a precursor to being an elected official to bring to the table real solutions to Americans problems? The GOP has fallen into the trap of spending more time campaigning on Americas problems than actually spending time fixing them. If candidates are not willing to candidly address our problems and sincerely present real solutions to those problems, they should drop out of the race altogether. The notion of public service, where a politician puts the good of others above his or her own, seems to be increasingly inapplicable. When we are vetting candidates, we tend to look at what they believe. That's a great and necessary thing, but it should only be a starting point. It doesn't much matter what someone believes if they don't act on it (i.e. GWB and curtailing government spending...what a joke).
*********************************
And statesmen at her council met
Who knew the seasons when to take
Occasion by the hand, and make
The bounds of freedom wider yet
- Tennyson, _To the Queen_
Yeah, you know what getting absolutely walloped in 1964 got us? Great Society. The War on Poverty. The National Endowment for the Arts. Medicare. The Elementary and Secondary Education Act. So many of the things we're fighting over now, and having intraparty squabbles over (like Medicare D and NCLB) had their start in the legacy Congress of Goldwater's defeat. All these things able to sail through because Democrats won supermajorities in both houses of the Congress ( gaining 36 seats to be up 295-140 in the House; gaining 2 seats in the Senate to be up 66-34 in the Senate).
So consider that before you say big defeats can be a long term gain for the party. We're STILL paying for 1964.
HTML Help Central for Red Staters
Reality: Thompson/Romney Dream: Santorum/Watts.
WFBuckley and Ronald Reagan. Twas a mixed bag, but 64 gave conservatives a unified vision and standard to rally behind.
And statesmen at her council met
Who knew the seasons when to take
Occasion by the hand, and make
The bounds of freedom wider yet
- Tennyson, _To the Queen_
Buckley had been putting out National Review for 9 years by the time 1964 rolled around.
'64 did bring Reagan to prominence, but it still took 26 years before he was able to win the Republican nomination.
Sorry. I'd rather not trade a new Great Society for the hope of maybe having another reagan when I'm in my mid-50s. Let's try to BUILD on what we already have.
HTML Help Central for Red Staters
Reality: Thompson/Romney Dream: Santorum/Watts.
Politics in the USA is cyclical. There may be nothing we can do at this stage to hold off the left from grabbing power of a little while, I am not saying give up, but I am not optimistic.
What I do know if that when we do get power again, we need to HOLD OUR OFFICIALS FEET TO THE FIRE!. We cannot allow any more shady dealings, no closet shenanigans, and no more bridges to nowhere.
I will never again allow anyone to cow me into silence when I am criticizing a Republican or conservative, the left can get away with that sort of mentality since no one really expects them to have any morals anyway, but we cannot.
"Nothing works like freedom, Nothing succeeds like liberty"
Kyle
I agree with the idea of making them earn your vote. But Ron Paul is not the answer to any question asked by any mainstream RS regulars, heh.
HTML Help Central for Red Staters
Reality: Thompson/Romney Dream: Santorum/Watts.
Touche. Wow. Talk about writing without thinking. God and Man at Yale had been out for (I think) 13 years by election time.
The central issue is a need for reform in the GOP. I am thankful that RedState is leading the charge in this regard, and is one of many reasons I am honored to participate in this community. Crooks reek the ranks of the GOP. Hypocrisy in government spending has become the norm (particularly the notion that pork spending is dreadful except when its in my district). Honor and character previously defined Republicans, but how can we say those words with a straight face following the arrests and corruption charges against our elected officials? I like Newt because he would refocus the party on the proper direction and get us thinking again about the ideas that make our party great.
And statesmen at her council met
Who knew the seasons when to take
Occasion by the hand, and make
The bounds of freedom wider yet
- Tennyson, _To the Queen_
I've always been surprised by the consistent anti-Newt bias here at RedState. It shows up here again even when the guy says he isn't running.
Newt Gingrich is the only living Republican who can credibly be mentioned in the same breath at Barry Goldwater and Ronald Reagan. Its a shame he is not running. We needed his big ideas and his unparalled ability to articulate conservative views in front of any audience. Instead we have a bunch of cowards who are afraid of Tavis Smiley.
I had hoped for Newt's candidacy. Clearly I am in the minority on this site. The field will be poorer without Newt. Oh yeah, and he won't endorse another Republican in the primary. Period. But expect him to be a good soldier when we settle on our nominee.
Try again. Newt has and does get a very warm welcome here.
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
I see no such bias. Personally I think Newt is brilliant, and has huge, sweeping ideas that are important for both conservatives and the world at large.
absentee
Some of his ideas are too sweeping -- it's called global-mania.
Too many of these nutcases running are infected with it.
Just say NO to NEWT.
Newt belongs to the movement, Reagan to the nation.
"No compromise with the main purpose, no peace till victory, no pact with unrepentant wrong." - Winston Churchill
I'm not anti-Newt, but the guy comes across as Mr. Know-It-All every time an election comes around. He is a brilliant idea man, but I really don't want to hear "Hillary has an 80% chance of winning" from him!!!!!!!!!!!
SHUT-UP MAN. I don't need any more downers.
"I guess Newt didn't get that $30 million."
I can attest this was not the case. Gingrich was informed he could not explore running for President and remain general chairman of American Solutions for Winning the Future at the same time, so he decided to stick with American Solutions.
RedState editors, can you please edit this inaccurate statement out of the article.
http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/09/29/gingrich-wont-run-in-2008/
... funny. Did someone "promise him a Rose Garden"?
http://osi-speaks.blogspot.com/2007/09/after-flirting-with-idea-to-run-f...
With malice towards none, with charity for all, with firmness in the right as God gives us to see right.
I used to be a big fan of Newt's, he is an extremely articulate conservative, but some of his recent statements and actions, such as his eagerness to slam his fellow Republicans, and his fawning praise of Hillary, have really made me turn sour on him.
I haven't seen any new, innovative ideas from Newt that would justify him running or give him a platform to win the Republican nomination, much less the Presidency.
He really craves the limelight more than anything, and I think Conservatives should understand his main motivation seems to be to promote himself rather than helping our Party.
We're a lot better off without him making a vanity run for the White House. He would be nothing but a distraction from the field of serious candidates, and would be completely unelectable in a general election.
"Back in the thirties we were told we must collectivize the nation because the people were so poor. Now we are told we must collectivize the nation because the people are so rich. "
William F. Buckley, Jr.
He is unable to do his American solutions. Oh well, goodby Newt, see you in 2012 against who you have endorsed.
Since this American Solutions project is so important to him, I hope that he can actually solve something.
HTML Help Central for Red Staters
Reality: Thompson/Romney Dream: Santorum/Watts.
It will accomplish one heck of a lot, if people start thinking about non government solutions that are conservative in nature. If people stop thinking in terms of government solving problems that will be even better.
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
I agree that it would be great if people would realize that it is them who are solutions, not their government.
Newt's program, though, is not the revolution. He could have made a bigger difference as President, and he knows it. Maybe he realizes the "inevitability" of... Hillary, Obama, Rudy, Fred, Mitt, Ron Paul!, whomever.
My gut says we'd need to have 4 years of torture under democrat rule for enough people to get active and take back government. It's a tough spot because these next 4 years are too critical to take off. Economy, supreme court justices, and national security will be at critical junctures this next 4 years.
Ask not what you can do for your country, ask what your country can do for you. Washington Elected Elite
For every lithuania and estonia you have soviet unions.
Lets face it and no offense to our current president, After Clinton we could get another bush (good war president but not exceptionally conservative or small government)
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
Newt should have run. Sure, he probably would have lost, maybe even in the primary. But so did Reagan. Then, after 4 years of Democratic rule and the ensuing recession, Newt should run again in 2012, and he would stand a very good chance at winning.
Recession is when your neighbor loses his job. Depression is when you lose yours. And recovery is when Hillary loses hers.
- Take 2
And statesmen at her council met
Who knew the seasons when to take
Occasion by the hand, and make
The bounds of freedom wider yet
- Tennyson, _To the Queen_
I think Newt would be an excellent VP for either Rudy or Fred.
---
(Formerly known as bee) / Internet member since 1987
Member of the Surreality-Based Community
There, now you have two meaningless anouncements.
Envisioning when all that is Left is the Right.
"When you say you're not running, is that 'definitely not running' or 'not running at the present time'? Can we take that as a maybe? Not running at the moment but will in the future? So when will you announce? I think we've heard news broken here on Meet the Press: T-Bon is seriously considering a run for President!"
I'll run for anything you want including Gay Pride Parade Queen.
Envisioning when all that is Left is the Right.
If Newt were a D, I think he would be the President of a major university by now (Harvard, Yale, Stanford style).
Since he's not, he would make a good President for the Heritage Foundation if that position opens up.
But for now, running American Solutions and trying to generate new conservative ideas and policies is probably a perfect place for Newt.
He's too partisan and unlikable to be President, but he's smart enough to do a lot of good for Rs and the country if he can find the right way to do it.
______________________________________
Bobby Jindal Saves Louisiana
I'm sorry to hear this. A run for Gingrich would mean further dilution by the CFR candidates.
Just more of the same. And no threat to any real republicans.
Heidi and Alvin Toffler...need we say more?
Globalists are nutcases...we don't need anymore wackos in the white house.
...bye now, too.
The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!
I used to like Newt's steak of fiscal conservatism- I think he honestly tried to control government spending.
But he's probably too much of a bomb thrower to get elected.
Which leaves only one true fiscal conservative in the Presidential race- Ron Paul.
If you don't think screaming about how 'the establishment' is afraid of him, and ranting about how we need to use GOOOOOLD as money, and saying we need to write letters of reprisal instead of using the US Armed Forces in future situations like 9/11, is going to come off WORSE in the public's eye than Gingrich's statements over the years....
HTML Help Central for Red Staters
Reality: Thompson/Romney Dream: Santorum/Watts.
Neil,
Ron Paul isn't against using military force when NECESSARY.
Ron Paul supported the war in Afghanistan.
But Dr. Paul is correct in saying that we can't declare war on everyone we don't like- its nothing short of insanity.
RATIONAL fiscal policy and RATIONAL foreign policy is what we need.
And no, I'm not a "pacifist liberal nut", I'm a disabled Army veteran and fiscal conservative who recently RETURNED TO THE REPUBLICAN PARTY.
If I thought America was threatened, I'd put on the uniform back on today if they'd let me (I'm disabled, but I'm still darned good with a rifle)- but I don't support military misadventures.
James
Ron Paul 2008!
Yes. Rep. Paul voted for the 9/11 AUMF. But when he did so, he went onto the floor of the house and said he did so with regret. He then explained how if he were in charge, we would not be sending troops in, but instead issuing letters of reprisal.
Is this not true? Should I dig up the quotes from the Congressional Record again?
HTML Help Central for Red Staters
Reality: Thompson/Romney Dream: Santorum/Watts.
If you disagree with Ron Paul about when to go to war, elect him President and you won't have to worry about it. When Ron Paul is President, he won't be declaring war, he'll leave that to the Congress (as the Constitution requires).
I don't like the idea of the President making all the decisions- the decision to send our brave servicemen and women to die in a war is to important to be left to the whims of one man alone.
BTW, I suspect I'd differ with Ron Paul over the first gulf war, too. I supported it and served and believed it necessary to protect the American economy.
James
Ron Paul 2008!
Newt was blowing smoke up everyone's butt, right up until the last minute. There's not a prayer's chance in hell he was going to run, even as he was musing about his consiglieres testing the waters to see if he could raise the $30 million. For a guy who is so damn intelligent, it makes you want to scream at how stupid he can act. He has a roll in the Republican Party, and if they don't leverage him, they're nuts. He's got great insights; great ideas; is a extraordinarily good communicator, and would be an enormous help to any Republican smart enough to tap his brain power.
So thank God for the good news that he's not running; but now Newt, get off your duff and help some one win.