Newt Running His Ideas For President
Hopes Voters Will Want The Man, Too
By Dan McLaughlin Posted in 2008 — Comments (72) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
Fortune magazine looks at Newt Gingrich's strategy to win in 2008:
"I'm going to tell you something, and whether or not it's plausible given the world you come out of is your problem," he tells Fortune. "I am not 'running' for president. I am seeking to create a movement to win the future by offering a series of solutions so compelling that if the American people say I have to be president, it will happen." So he's running, only without yet formally saying so.
While other potential competitors like Arizona Senator John McCain, former New York City Mayor Rudolph Giuliani and Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney build staff and hire consultants, Gingrich revealed to Fortune that he plans to create a draft-Newt "wave" by building grassroots support for his health care, national security and energy independence ideas--all of which he has been peddling to corporate audiences over the past six years. "Nice people," Gingrich says of his GOP competitors. "But we're not in the same business. They're running for president. I'm running to change the country."
"My hope is to create a wave that sweeps through that entire system, and in a context that obviously includes the presidency. Even if he's not the nominee, Gingrich says he plans to throw the weight of what he's built behind a "winning-the-future presidential candidate."
In other words, Newt has adequately assessed his main strength as a candidate (his ideas, which are often spot-on and always provocative) and his main weakness (Newt's own unpopularity and personal failings), and is running a "movement" campaign. Will it work? Read on...
Most "movement" candidates end up losing (even ones like Reagan in 1976 who later get the brass ring), and I'm sure that Newt knows that. The key question for an idea-driven "movement" candidate is whether he can gain sufficient traction to compel the ultimate nominee (or future nominees of the party) to adopt some of his ideas. Thus, Barry Goldwater in 1964 ran a movement, won the nomination, got crushed in November - but future GOP nominees adopted his philosophy. Thus, Steve Forbes ran a movement campaign in 1996 and 2000 that prompted both Bob Dole and George W. Bush to embrace major tax cuts and Bush to press (with varying degrees of vigor) other elements of the Forbes platform, like private Social Security accounts, school choice and health care savings accounts. Thus, key elements of Ross Perot's 1992 campaign platform - notably his emphasis on balanced budgets - were adopted by both the Contract for America and the Clinton Administration. Thus, social and religious conservative campaigns have often held GOP nominees' feet to the fire on social issues. Candidates like George McGovern, Jesse Jackson, Jerry Brown and Howard Dean have played similar roles on the Left, although perhaps with less influence on their party's successful candidates, who have mainly been those who avoided embracing those ideas.
The odds against Newt '08 remain prohibitively long - one would search long and hard for evidence that a majority of the general electorate remains open to persuasion by Newt - but the terrain of the current candidate field is enormously favorable to an influential Gingrich candidacy. With George Allen having essentially self-destructed, the field as it sits features three main frontrunners (Giuliani, McCain and Romney) whose past records or rhetoric paint them as varying degrees of moderate. All three will be focusing much of their attention on convincing skeptical conservative primary voters that they will, in fact, govern close enough to mainstream conservatism to be worth following into battle. Several of the lower-tier potential candidates (Huckabee, Frist, Pataki, Hagel) also have major vulnerabilities on their right flank. And with Jeb Bush and others like Haley Barbour sitting this one out, the roster of possible conservative champions are mainly little-known, haven't gotten started yet, are unlikely to run, or have limited appeal (Sam Brownback, Duncan Hunter, Mark Sanford, Tim Pawlenty, Tom Tancredo, Mike Pence, etc.).
But politics, like nature, abhors a vacuum, and Newt's name recognition guarantees that if no standard-bearer emerges to unite the GOP's Right, he can stay in the race as long as it takes to force the eventual frontrunner to deal with his ideas. Which is good to know. Because like it or not, sometimes the best candidate for a particular campaign may not be a lifelong movement conservative. But successful general election campaigns are run on clear and principled platforms that represent the prospective administration's promises, and not just the natural inclinations of the presidential or vice-presidential nominee. Thus, the reality that the best person for the job may not be the most conservative should not prevent the primary season from putting conservative ideas and priorities on the national agenda for 2009-2012.
« Dueling June Obama fundraising claims? — Comments (2) | McCain Unequivocally Supports Federalist Solution to Abortion — Comments (97) »
Newt Running His Ideas For President 72 Comments (0 topical, 72 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »
A lousy candidate but an excellent president.
I wish Newt didn't have his baggage, he would be the front runner.
Formerly ConservativeD. Two thirds of the world is covered by water, the other third is covered by Champ Bailey
Everything Newt has accomplished in his life has been against overwhelming odds. He is not deterred by what the status quo consultant class says about declaring post-Labor Day. Newt's model can be characterized as "ideas first, candidancy later if there is sufficent interest." Of course this is utterly at odds with what we usually get -- candidacy first and maybe a few petty ideas later but don't hold your breath.
The three leading lights of conservatism in the post WWII political arena are Goldwater, Reagan, and Newt. One is still around to lead us forward.
Agree about Newt prevailing against overwhelming odds. His ideas are the best. Maybe after a few months of Pelosi-Murtha and Rangel, the ideas first approach will catch on.
Of course the way to avoid his problems (electability, campaign charisma) but to play to his strengths (ideas, knows how congress works) would be to run for VP. And running to "change the country" rather than running for President sounds like a good way to do it. I could see a McCain/Newt or Guiliani/Newt combo. It would reassure the 1994 conservatives and in Guiliani's case give him some DC experience on his ticket.
I'll put my $0.02 in right now and say that I'd vote for a Romney/Gingrich ticket before any other possible combination that I see in the field as being viable. But only in that order: Romney for President and Newt as the Veep. I think they would make a very good team in that orientation.
I think the next intelligent choice that people can accept (it may even be a better choice overall) would be Romney/Pawlenty.
Newt has a tremendous ego; people say he won't accept the Veep slot. I'll wait until I see how his ""American Solutions for Winning the Future" thinktank/campaign org./dog+pony show goes over. I think they're going to go over like a cannonball in the Marianas Trench, as I've said before, but hey, I'm just one idiot observer.
I've always thought the "family values" party should try to elect someone who actually didn't have such a sordid divorce record if they were trying to run for POTUS, but hey, this is the postmodern 21st Century and I guess with a slick enough presentation you can get people to believe almost anything.
Was one of the NRA-endorsed candidates who actually won reelection.
now that I have gotten over my mourning over the loss of the Allen potential candidacy, I am not really happy about the Big Three right now - Newt is my man!!
great comment - him making a great President and a poor candidate.
he would be fantastic in a debate - against Hillary, Obama, Edwards, whomever. I am glad he is doing what he is doing.
I just listened to Jerry Falwell say this weekend that people that live ungodly lives cannot be trusted to represent Godly principles. Reverend Falwell is right!
just representing American values. I am not too sure we can all agree on what is a "godly" value, Although I am fairly certain Falwell wouldn't know one if it bit him on the organ he uses to think with.
"Nothing works like freedom, Nothing succeeds like liberty"
Kyle
Maybe we could make someone like you RNC chairman. I guess you want us on the religous right to just leave the Presidential portion of the ballot blank. Maybe you could push us into a third party. If someone like Guiliani gets the nomination, I wouldn't care less if Hillary Rotten beat him.
Because in your world, It doesn't matter what a person believes or how good they are, or what Ideas the have. It doesn't matter their stand on federalism or the courts. It only matters what they think on a small handful of issues which really have nothing to do with a president anyway.
And before you go off on the deep end. I probably agree with you on most of those social issues. But I do not see how in a pluralistic society it makes any sense to try to push those values on the populace at the federal level. Its a loser, both politically, intellectually, and morally.
Go to church, vote, but by all means, educate yourself on how the real world works and do not take your cues from a television preacher. The bible advises Christians to be "wise as serpents, and harmless as doves".
"Nothing works like freedom, Nothing succeeds like liberty"
Kyle
then how can any of his commandments be less real than "the real world"?
It always amazes me how putting just the right name in a post elicits anti-christian bigotry, especially by self-professed Christians who just happen to be a bit more worldly.
I agree that a candidate who has not necessarily successfully followed the commandments, but believes that in general they should be followed is better than one who doesn't care a whit one way or the other. But that isn't cause to mindlessly attack someone who might be persuaded to be an ally.
who can best lead the country and strive to promote the values I hold dear than an idiot who has great morals.
"It ain't over till it's over"
Yoggi Berra
I would find it difficult to vote for Newt, myself. I love most of his ideas, but moral lapses are often a signal of something more.
Sure, he didn't violate the law on the whole deal the way Clinton did (lying about it under oath in a harassment lawsuit, for example), but taking a mistress is an immoral act.
Given the choice between Newt and Hillary (or some similar competition), I would sincerely consider the Libertarian candidate.
That said, if in that situation the LNP candidate were arguing for open borders with amnesty, doing away with all nukes and cluster bombs, unrestricted access to abortion and withdrawing from Iraq, I'd vote Newt. Those issues are why I don't generally vote LNP to begin with.
"In matters of style, swim with the current; in matters of principle, stand like a rock."
--Thomas Jefferson
Falwell is no prophet and his words mean nothing. Seek your own wizdom, prey and remeber that Rome and God are seprate.
If Romans 13:1-7 states: "Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. Consequently, he who rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves. For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and he will commend you. For he is God's servant to do you good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword for nothing. He is God's servant, an agent of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer. Therefore, it is necessary to submit to the authorities, not only because of possible punishment but also because of conscience. This is also why you pay taxes, for the authorities are God's servants, who give their full time to governing. Give everyone what you owe him: If you owe taxes, pay taxes; if revenue, then revenue; if respect, then respect; if honor, then honor."
That passage makes it abundantly clear. We are to obey the government God places over us. God created government to establish order, punish evil, and promote justice (Genesis 9:6; 1 Corinthians 14:33; Romans 12:8). We are to obey the government in everything - paying taxes, obeying rules and laws, showing respect, etc. If we do not, we are ultimately showing disrespect towards God, for He is the One who placed that government over us. When the Apostle Paul wrote Romans 13:1-7, he was under the government of Rome, during the reign of Nero, perhaps that most evil of all the Roman Emperors. Paul still recognized that government’s rule over him. How can we do any less?
The next question is: "Is there a time when we should not obey the laws of the land?" The answer to that question may be found in Acts 5:27-29, "Having brought the apostles, they made them appear before the Sanhedrin to be questioned by the high priest. 'We gave you strict orders not to teach in this Name,' he said. 'Yet you have filled Jerusalem with your teaching and are determined to make us guilty of this man's blood.' Peter and the other apostles replied: 'We must obey God rather than men!'" From this, we can plainly see that as long as the law of the land does not contradict the law of God, we are bound to obey. As soon as the law of the land contradicts God's command, we are to disobey the law of the land, and obey God's law. However, even in that instance, we are to accept the government’s authority over us. This is demonstrated by the fact that Peter and John did not protest being flogged, but instead rejoiced that they suffered for obeying God (Acts 5:40-42).
Recommended Resource: Hard Sayings of the Bible by Kaiser, Davids, & Brauch.
The point is If God wants Newt as Head of State, then guess what?. If you believe the Bible than you must recognize that God may have little interest in promoting Moral men into power. They Govern to Serve GOD's will, there are obviously many Heads of State around the world who are less than Moral.
Falwell gives an opinion, worth as much as any other but contrary to the Bible.
cast the first stone.
I think Jerry Falwell is a wise man but you have taken what he said and are painting with it using a broad brush here. Yes, Newt made mistakes. Haven't you?
The foundational principle of Christianity is forgiveness. None of us deserve it, but it is offered to all of us as a free gift.
It sounds like you are saying that because Newt has made mistakes in the past, he is forever disqualified from any leadership positions. If so, that is an unwise, impractical, and judgmental position to take.
If we were instructed to support only perfect people for political office, we could never vote for anyone.
From a convicted, pardoned sinner,
Steve Lockridge
http://redstateconservative.blogspot.com
-- Today we did what we had to do. They counted on America to be passive. They counted wrong. -- Ronald Reagan
I realize that I am demonstrating my ignorance here. What baggage does Newt have? He resigned, but I thought that was because he accepted an advance on a book he had written. I've obviously missed something. Please someone illuminate for me.
chuck
"Do not separate text from historical background. If you do, you will have perverted and subverted the Constitution, which can only end in a distorted, bastardized form of illegitimate government." --James Madison
"Living Documents" suffer this distortion
Even though that's the wrong word, have a look here.
There's this too, even granting that some of the ethics stuff was ticky-tack or bogus. There's more where that came from. We will be refighting a lot of old battles if we put Newt on the ticket.
"No compromise with the main purpose, no peace till victory, no pact with unrepentant wrong." - Winston Churchill
the dems nominate Hillary
Hillary's rose law firm files
her actions in intimidating bill's accusers
the IRS files
stealing white house property on the way out
Bill's role in all of the above
all the impeachment evidence trent lott refused to get into
which includes intimidating bimbo eruptions
the china campaign $$ in exchange for missile technology
last minute manipulation of GDP numbers
I truly believe, that given Bill's heart attack and the decline of his skills to lie effectively, and the things he will finally have to answer for above plus his failed policies on terror and the pardons
that he will die during a hillary 08 campaign.
PLUS see this
http://gamecock.townhall.com/g/8d56302d-8992-4136-b40a-c92d6f52e6bd
I think his and her pre-910 mindset will doom them as well.
www.race42008.com
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson
http://gamecock.townhall.com
You can find other references to Newt Gingrich's baggage (some of it is phoney baloney and some of it is, sadly, real baloney) if you follow this Google Link.
Out of all the candidates the Republicans are thinking of right now, Gingrich has some of the most damning "baggage" among them. And we're not even getting into his legislative record, which will also be a subject of relentless attack if he makes it to the top of the ticket.
_Evil prevails only when good men do nothing._
He was re-elected Governor in a walk in a BAD year. I wonder how well a Sonny Perdue candidacy would do?
Look, I like the guy, but c'mon: He won because he did so little. This is what he does. It's his idiom. People who don't do much aren't elected President.
-----------
Even those who learn from history are surrounded by those doomed to repeat it.
The national mood in 1976 was pretty much against the executive branch. Carter embodied a diminished executive. The historical moment was unique.
"No compromise with the main purpose, no peace till victory, no pact with unrepentant wrong." - Winston Churchill
They owned him after they provided early support for his candidacy. And he paid them back by creating a national boondoggle dedicated to them that no Republican president since has been able to undo.
Rose
It's SOOOO easy to explain Carter - everyone thought a "plain" farmer had to have more common sense than Gerald Ford (last surviving member of the Warren Commission fiasco, who was as attrac tive to the Congressional DIMS as he was to the Congressional GOP members...) who thought that pardoning Nixon without a trial would HEAL the nation! SO BARFING on BOTH their houses.
(Georgia didn't talk until AFTER the elections - we did not know! - Remember, it was days of The Fairness Doctrine. There was no Rush!)
You'll see the same thing happen with Newt, Giuliani, McCain, and kind.
And we won't even regret it.
I didn't vote for Robert Dole - check that vote out, he got fewer votes that Bush Sr, did - fittingly, since HE submarined Bush Sr.
You can look at me as one vote - but look at those two election results - I speak for millions.
I hated Clinton more than any of you who support any of those three RINOS - proof is that you would consider voting for RINOS.
I see no difference between them all. Neither do millions of Conservatives.
Ideas aren't enough. Leadership matters and Newt lost the confidence of his peers a long time ago. Romney, McCain and Guiliani all have some pretty interesting ideas to run on. And they all have credible claims to leadership. We're not talking Bob Dole in 1996. If Newt has some unique insights about health care and telecommunications, a presidential campaign is not a great forum to advance them.
After a few months of active fundraising in early 2007, we'll see if Newt is really in the hunt.
Mitt Romney '08 Mitt Romney '08...i think newt has too many issues the dems would bring back up..Pawlenty would have been a good vp pick but he won reelection...Romney Huckabee '08 would be a prime choice for the southern conseratives and the north..where we need more votes
Gingrich is a brilliant man for whom relatively few women will vote. Romney is a brilliant man for whom many women will vote. Plus, Romney has apparently lived a highly moral life, so folks who care a lot about the president setting a good example should feel very comfortable with him.
Why vote for Newt when we can apparently have Romney?
Newt would win the debates against the Democrat but still lose the general election by 10 percentage points. Romney CAN WIN the election because women will like him.
Rose
I don't even like all his ideas, like the one he told Sean on national TV, sitting there smirking WITH COLMES - that all the illegal aliens here HAVE to be given a pathway to citizenship - "it's only fair", " you cannot send them back"...
I live only a few hours from the Border. This ain't gonna make the grade.
Or, "her right to choose"... many doormats can refuse accountability - but when a repeat adulterer passes the buck to "her"...
He will never get my vote, and I supported him back when, when no other Conservatives that I knew personally would even entertain the idea of supporting him.
It's finished.
And he is trying to put out the word he is a Reaganite.
No, he ain't no Reaganite.
He is a Clintonite. Stick his finger in the "wind" and try to jump out front and look like he is leading the parade.
To me, Newt, McCain, and Giuliani are no different at all, and no better than Hanoi John, Algore, Hillary, Howard Dean and Lindsey Graham and John Edwards and Jimmy Carter.
NO!
Did anyone of you believe Jimmy Swaggart the SECOND TIME???
NOT ME!
I have a huge pile of names I am ready to WRITE-IN.
You McCain, Newt, Giuliani lovers want to sit there drilling holes in the hull of the boat, go for it - I ain't offering you one single solitary cork!
HAVE FUN!
BTW, I won't be voting for any Massachusetts politicians, either - it ain't worth the risk.
I'm from Texas and I do not know a Texan who will vote for Mitt, though I've seen one on the internet who says his Texas family will.
I've actually seen a Dim party machine in action - actually, I've seen two in action, in person, and details on several others, like is in Austin Texas, Travis County, right now - see what they did to Tom DeLay.
Travis County did it to DeLay, but the Kennedy Machine didn't do it to Mitt???
I have other options.
Rose
BTW, I won't be voting for any Massachusetts politicians, either - it ain't worth the risk.
I have other options.
What other options? Sitting out and voting for HRC? Or voting 3rd party and voting for HRC? Or just straight voting for HRC? Those are some really excellent options you got there.
---
"I am a great believer in luck. The harder I work, the more I have of it." -- Thomas Jefferson
I remember when everyone gave Libby Dole a pass at Red Cross when everyone was discovered to be involved in a terrible scandal of embezzlement (I'm still wondering why!) - they did NOT examine Libby's conduct TO EVEN SEE - they all decided "THEY KNEW" Libby was clean. Yeah, right.
You saw them apply that standard to Ken Lay, at Enron, right?
ROTFLTHH!
I'm not going to waste my time wondering how a GOP member DID NOT GET CRUNCHED in the meat-grinder of the Kennedy Machine.
NOT IN THIS DAY AND AGE - NOT with the CONSEQUENCES of making a wrong choice hanging in the balance.
NO POLITITIAN IS "*OWED*" THE BENEFIT OF THE DOUBT!
It's up to HIM or HER to deal with the rammifications of their own image - that isn't MY burden to bear.
I have no obligation to TRUST HIM until he proves me wrong!
Where do you guys get such poppycock???
I'm going on to fresh ground, looking for someone who DOES NOT raise my hackles.
You know what the folks who teach people how to be safe in public situations tells them about some stranger who makes them feel uncomfortable?
THERE IS NO REASON FOR YOU TO OVER-RIDE YOUR GUT FEELINGS JUST BECAUSE SOME STRANGER IS BEING SO "NICE AND FRIENDLY" THAT YOU FEEL MEAN-MINDED FOR NOT TRUSTING THEM.
"TRUST YOUR GUTS!", they tell these people!
I don't owe this guy ANYTHING, LEAST of all MY VOTE!
America is in SERIOUS trouble - I need someone who REASSURES ME - NOT someone who makes me search for reasons that I can dismiss my misgivings! Especially not because some of you guys thinks that makes me mean, hateful, and judgemental.
This guy just doesn't remind me of what I am looking for.
That's enough - until he does something to prove it.
Rose
To not vote for someone because of where they choose to live is really obscene, I know you are smarter than that.
Some people are simply harder to smear because they don't put themselves in ethically compromising positions, like Romney who doesn't curse, drink, cheat, etc. Kennedy tried his hardest to smear Romney when he ran against him for the Senate.
Romney was elected governor primarily to fix a financial mess in Massachusetts despite of his social conservatism. His opponent being super-liberal helped.
So are you telling me you'd pick Hillary Clinton over a guy like Romney who has been one the country's leading fighters for not redefining marriage, fighting jihadists aggressively and putting aside pointless political correctness, and for textualist judges who know their judicial limits?
No candidate is going to be "perfect" for you on every issue, but you have to pick the best of two candidates. How do you help yourself and your family by not voting or voting for a Democrat? Given that you need party support to get legislation passed, in many ways the consequence of your vote is to push either the Democrat or Republican agenda, so pick the platform you like the best.
You misunderstand me - there is no DIM ALIVE that is an option.
FURTHERMORE This is NOT about WHERE SOMEONE LIVES - it is about WHO THEY LIVE UNDER.
If Mass was a place to elect a Conservative "TO FIX A DIM PROBLEM" then why did they JUST NOW RE-ELECT TOADY "BIG DIG" KENNEDY of CHAPPAQUIDDICK FAME.
I ain't pickin' Hillary. I ain't picking any LIBERAL GOP's, either.
If YOU pick Romney, or McCain, or Rudi or Newt COUNTING ON ME TO BAIL YOU OUT FOR YOUR CHOICES, you are making a heavy mistake.
This is like those cases where the people are gathered for one of those "learning to trust" exercises - you fall over and I catch you, and I fall over and you catch me...
America fell, and the GOP dropped them.
NOW the GOP is falling, and I ain't catching them unless they are putting someone forward who is going to do what is right.
I don't have to trust them "just because they say so" - they blew that opportunity - now it is up to them to provide some bona fidies - RINOS ain't it!
Some say Mitt is a Liberal, also, just a Conservative Liberal or half and half - or Conservative for Mass, but Liberalish to most Southerners.
Whatever.
I have serious questions, and I owe America - I don't owe Mitt diddly squat.
You think I OWE it to ANYONE to "TRUST" What has grown and thrived under the shadow of Toady Chappaquiddick Waitress Sandwich "BIG DIG" Kennedy?
ME??? WHO SAW THE KOEPECKNE'S ON TV, LIVE, all those years ago, WITH MY OWN EYEBALLS???
Fa'get about it! It ain't happenin'!
BEEN THERE - DONE THAT!
No candidate is going to be perfect, but when I saw Reagan, I KNEW! And I was RIGHT!
And I still feel good about Bush Jr, and I am sure right ALL THINGS CONSIDERED! There CERTAINLY were NO alternatives to HIM, either in 2000 or in 2004!
Don't you DARE try to tell me I don't know what I am looking for.
AND DON'T YOU DARE TELL ME I HAVE TO JUMP ON SOMEONE'S "STUPID" BANDWAGON TWO YEARS OUT!
You cannot show me an Election in the USA where the Election Winner was SEEN, two years out!
Rose
>>You cannot show me an Election in the USA where the Election Winner was SEEN, two years out!
I predicted in 1996 that 2000 would see Bush defeat Gore. Though your main point is valid. That was an exceptionally closed race and 2008 is exceptionally open. It will be the first since 1952 with neither the President nor the Vice-President on the ballot.
By the way, you DO COME OFF as a bit mean-spirited and agressive, but that is AT LEAST AS MUCH FOR the random capitaliation, KNOWN AS SHOUTING as for the content of your posts.
IT ALWAYS SEEMS LIKE FROTHING AT THE MOUTH CRAZINESS.
Quentin Langley
Editor of http://www.quentinlangley.net
If I could hand-pick anybody for President, without having the inconvenience of having an election, my pick would hands down be Newt Gingrich.
He's a brilliant visionary for the Conservative movement, but he has more baggage than an airport, and is unfortunately, absolutely unelectable.
Whoever the next Republican President is, it would serve them well to incorporate Newt's policy recommendations.
"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.
Whoever the next Republican President is, it would serve them well to incorporate Newt's policy recommendations.
A policy post inside the next administration would be the way to go... if he will take it and if he will be willing to play nice once he is in the position. Those are two big ifs. I don't think he is electable, but he has some good ideas that somebody should certainly steal.
---
"I am a great believer in luck. The harder I work, the more I have of it." -- Thomas Jefferson
>>He's a brilliant visionary for the Conservative movement, but he has more baggage than an airport, and is unfortunately, absolutely unelectable.
I do not accept the notion that a candidate can be "unelectable". Too much depends on the circumstances, the popularity of the party, and the opponent. If some people are, in their nature, unelectable, what happens if BOTH parties choose such a person?
What I do accept is that some people are a drag on the ticket and others lift the ticket. I suspect the effect is usually small, but often that is enough to make the difference, at least at Presidential level.
Look at Hillary Clinton's election in 2000. She trailed Al Gore - who is as close as you can get to a completely bland, generic, Democrat - by five points. It was still enough to beat Lazio, but if you take that same effect and apply it nationwide, it not only means that Florida would not have been close, but every state where Gore's margin was under ten points would have flipped. Off the top of my head, that would have been PA, MI, IA, WI, MN, WA, OR, NM. California, New Jersey and Illinois would have been closer than Florida, Missouri or Ohio. It would definitely have been a good election for the Republicans.
Would Newt put a drag on the ticket? Yes, I think so. More than Hillary's? Maybe, but I am not sure.
I have said before that I think Newt would be a great President. His vision and style are more suited to an executive role than the Speakership. If he were Governor of Georgia right now he would be runaway favourite for 2008. But he messed up. He opted out of a race against Roy Barnes that he (presumably) thought was unwinnable when it was actually ripe for the taking. It is a shame, but it is one entirely of his making.
Quentin Langley
Editor of http://www.quentinlangley.net
but is unelectable, how about letting him run the NRCC, to try to take back the House? He does have experience there, but he wouldn't have to be elected!
The bad news: Conservatism is hard to sell. The good news is that it works.
If we win the White House again, the executive leadership will drown out whoever we have in the Congress, once again.
--
It is much more important to kill bad bills than to pass good ones. -- Calvin Coolidge
I think Newt lives now in Northern Virginia. He should learn the state and then run for Senator or Governor.
I would say governor would suit him better. And if he wants to prove he has learnt the state he could start off being mayor of somewhere first.
Quentin Langley
Editor of http://www.quentinlangley.net
When Tom DeLay's "speedy trial" is over, he can run for Virginia Governor in 2009 or at least in 2013!
I'd rather see him return to Texas and challenge KBH.
--
It is much more important to kill bad bills than to pass good ones. -- Calvin Coolidge
It would indeed be so sweet to see Texas throw her keester out for a Conservative who is NOT a butt buddy for McCain!
Rose
This may turn out to be a question that demonstrates my ignorance, but so be it....
Who was the last President who at the time of his election was not holding a military or political position of some sort?
What about VP?
When the only tool you own is a hammer, every problem begins to resemble a nail. -- Abraham Maslow
Reagan in 1980 and Bush in 1980.
Quentin Langley
Editor of http://www.quentinlangley.net
I'll take the ideas and pass on the man.
--------
Sometimes the hardest thing and the right thing are the same. -The Fray, "All At Once"
Can we run Newt's ideas in some other candidate's head?
I'm a big fan of Newt the thinker; I'm far less enamoured of Newt the nominee, becuase I'm deathly afraid of Hillary the Commander in Chief.
"I am afraid that even after the American people will elect those who promise to leave Iraq, the U.S. will not do so." - Hamas leader Abu Abdullah
I wish he'd just go sign up to work for Mitt Romney and get it over with.
--
It is much more important to kill bad bills than to pass good ones. -- Calvin Coolidge
he can't. The idea man has to leave his options open until the voters decide who the nominee will be. If he is offering his ideas, he has to be able to offer them to all the candidates. Selecting one this far out doesn't make any kind of sense. Pat Paulsen use to joke that he "won the elections simply by not running" and "avoiding being eliminated" when he did his schtick, but there is truth in that statement.
Seroiusly, how does his name get mentioned in the same sentence as "president"? As for McCain... I can only see him getting the nomination as a last resort choice. Yet somehow, he's still considered a "front-runner".
I like Newt too, but I guess that baggage will be difficult to overcome. I guess we have 2 years to wait and see. Either way, we need him in some kind of leadership position even if he doesn't make POTUS.
As brought up before.
Mention Newt and you get baggage, unelectable.
Mention Hillary and no mention of baggage.
I'm confused.
If you often find yourself arguing the exceptions rather than the rule you are probably are a legend in your own mind. -CommonCents
is nominee, we will buy ads and put the garbage out there for sure
and it is legion
www.race42008.com
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson
http://gamecock.townhall.com
THAT is an automatic given and goes without saying, just like "If their lips are flappin', ..."
Rose
Please nominate Newt. Really, please. And pass the popcorn.
You may take that as either encouragement or dissuasion as you see fit--depending on what, if anything, that opinion means to you.
All you guys who LOVE Newt's great ideas?
I've never seen so many Conservatives who love the idea of LEGALLIZING and giving citizenship to ALL the ILLEGAL ALIENS!
Newt smirking at Hannity WITH a very befuddled and plainly gleeful COLMES over his assertion that these illegal aliens WILL get citizenship - "We can't send them home."
"ENTITLEMENT" mentality??? Wha....????????
D#$&$# Fr*&$#$#*& doesn't run his own household THAT way!
Wants to roll out the Red Carpet Treatment to FELONS on MY home????
You guys are scarey as the dickens!
Rose
from the run of the political mill by the fact that he very effectively articulates substantive ideas. Find me another politician, R or D, who speaks in more than sound bites and canned speaches - or who can. I confess that I, and I think many others, are attracted to him by the very fact that he does articulate ideas, some of which are conservative. Frankly, the world of conservative thought is dense and difficult; WFB, Russell Kirk, et al. ain't my idea of airplane riding reading, though I've waded through all of them.
But once you get past the superficial appeal; Newt is first and foremost a teacher and a good one, Newt is no conservative and I'm not saying that as a criticism. I posit that at heart Newt Gingrich is an old style statist Republican. We should understand that by today's standards, JFK would be an old-style statist Republican. Newt rose to power from Georgia which gave him conservative bona fides but if you look at what he actually advocated and did, he was a consummate practictioner of the art of the possible. The only thing radical about the Contract With America was the fact that they did it. Most of it was just commonsense politics, but it was made remarkable by the fact that they committed to do it and in the main did. Most of the ideas in his Winning the Future are focussed on taking the political/social world as we find it and tuning here and there; there's nothing particularly innovative and certainly no hard right turn in it. For example, you can hear most of the health care ideas, transportable medical records, data mining, etc., expounded upon endlessly at a National Foundation for Employee Benefits Conference, an organization that primarily caters to union health and welfare trusts. What he does best is take the Republican managerial approach that Horowitz discusses and communicate it effectively and accessibly.
Newt ultimately succumbed to the hubris that is endemic to DC, and most other capital cities. I don't think he can be elected absent a cooperative suicide by the Democrats, but I would like to see him in a leadership role and poised to strike should that suicide evidence itself. Were he in a leadership role again or even elected President, it wouldn't be long before the hard conservatives here were criticizing his compromises, but that criticism would be leavened by the fact that an R was in power. Here I side with Erick et al.; it is all about doing what it takes to get fifty percent plus one. In order to govern well, one must first govern.
In Vino Veritas
.. but the number of folks clamoring for Newt to run could probably fill a phone booth.
Back in the day, Newt seemed sort of the Republican mirror image of Bill Clinton -- both very sharp, both taken with Big Ideas, and both ethically challenged. But Newt, though very ambitious, was not bull-moose-in-heat ambitious like X42 (and today, he's 10 years older).
-----------
Even those who learn from history are surrounded by those doomed to repeat it.