Why Newt? Here's why

[Iriemon]

.... Against Obama, an empty suit against a man of high intelligence and proven leadership.

I'm not sure if you are refering to Gringrich or Obama as the empty suit, but I would not put a check mark in the intellgence column for Gringrich against Obama, who was president of the Harvard Law Review.

 

[BubbaBob]

EVERY single poster to this thread has shown an ignorance of Newt...both the pro and the anti Newt folks.

All the posters talk of him being either a hope or an anathma as a republican candidate. Newt is not a republican.

Newt quit the republican party a couple of months ago and joined the libertarian party. IF he were to run, which I hope he does, it will be as a libertarian. He would be the first libertarian to be a candidate for president that would have a snowballs chance in he!! of winning.

When you discuss/post on a subject, on either side, you really ought to know at least the basics of the topic, and what party a potential candidate is a member of is pretty basic.

BubbaBob

 

[disneydude]

Even Better:

I would LOVE to see Newt run as a strong third party candidate!...I have been saying for a long time that this election is prime for a strong third party candidate. Bubba....I think that is the ticket. Let the Republicans run Giuliani or Romney, the Dems run Obama or Hilary and let Newt run as a Libertarian. Would love to watch that race!

 

[Stinger]

This is true, but you can't deny that social conservatives represent a big part of the GOP base. And they don't like Gingrich much more than they like McCain, Romney, or Giuliani.

And social conservatives aren't necessarily the "religious right" and those issues aren't necessarily front burner issues anymore.

Moderates? Not really. Newt Gingrich made his career by appealing to the fiscally right-wing elements in his party...and unlike, say, Hillary, he hasn't made much of an effort to counter that image as a firebreathing partisan.

Fiscally conservative, cut spending, increase revenues. Attrachs moderates. The Contract With America attrached independents and moderates.

Heh, well most people probably don't talk history when they enjoy beer and wings. :lol:

Intellecutals do :drink, but the point being he's is the kind of guy you'd want to hang with.

He certainly does not seem at all charismatic to me. Certainly not compared to, say, Mitt Romney.

To each his own, when he talks of government and this country he can get a crowd intralled.

You are right. These are just my early speculations; the political landscape can and probably will change before the primaries.

My concern is that it is all starting way too early, who can survive this long.

Nah, I try to be objective when assessing the odds. It just seems to me that the Democrats have several very electable candidates to choose from, whereas the Republicans have several unelectable candidates to choose from.

I think you are looking through rose colored glasses.


If I had to rank the serious candidates or potential serious candidates in order of electability, it would be:

1. John Edwards (doesn't bring anything except populist rhetoric and he must know it pulling out of th first chance to debate the issues)

2. Barack Obama (not only less experience virtually no experience and when he's off his speeches doesn't come across all that well)

3. Bill Richardson (A tax cutter, this will turn off many Dems, and he has to answer for his knee-jerk defense of Sandy Berger, we can't have a CnC who puts politics above our national security)

4. Hillary Clinton (Not likable at all, too much baggage and too thin skin to deal with it, she will win by bringing down the other candidates)

5. Rudy Giuliani (His background won't matter to the majoirity)

6. Al Gore (He has something to say to America now...and that's great, but most can't stand to hear him talk! Too much a phony and he can't count on the GW disciples to get him elected)

7. Mitt Romney (Don't know enough about him yet, has issue problems he has to explain, religion won't make a difference)

8. John McCain (McCain-Feingold may come back to haunt him, his latest statement ala Barak could hurt him)

9. Newt Gingrich (Not particularly charismatic, not in front of the hometown crowd. Could out debate any of the Dem candidates. The skeletons were nothing more that Dem attacks, no one is interested in them anymore. he'll play last man standing)

My point is that "intelligence" and "leadership" are not words that most people would use to describe George W Bush.

Compared to the last two Dem candidates he outranked both.

 

[disneydude]

Quote:
My point is that "intelligence" and "leadership" are not words that most people would use to describe George W Bush.

Compared to the last two Dem candidates he outranked both.

Ok....Stinger you have now officially earned the title of the biggest Bush Apologist. I don't know of anyone who would make the claim that intelligence and leadership could be used in the same sentence as GWB.

Although I agree with you that Newt should run.....either as a Republican or Libertarian.

 

[Navy Pride]

If Newt does run it will be as a Republican not as a Libertarian..He remembers what happened in 1992 when Perot ran as a 3rd party candidate and that gave the presidency to "Slick Willie"......Just think if Perot had not run we would have never heard of "Slick Willie" Clinton.......

 

[Kandahar]

EVERY single poster to this thread has shown an ignorance of Newt...both the pro and the anti Newt folks.

All the posters talk of him being either a hope or an anathma as a republican candidate. Newt is not a republican.

Newt quit the republican party a couple of months ago and joined the libertarian party. IF he were to run, which I hope he does, it will be as a libertarian. He would be the first libertarian to be a candidate for president that would have a snowballs chance in he!! of winning.

When you discuss/post on a subject, on either side, you really ought to know at least the basics of the topic, and what party a potential candidate is a member of is pretty basic.

BubbaBob

When did he become a Libertarian? Do you have a link?

 

[Navy Pride]

When did he become a Libertarian? Do you have a link?

There is noi link.....You would love it if he did though....Ain't gonna happen....

 

[Kandahar]

If Newt does run it will be as a Republican not as a Libertarian..He remembers what happened in 1992 when Perot ran as a 3rd party candidate and that gave the presidency to "Slick Willie"......Just think if Perot had not run we would have never heard of "Slick Willie" Clinton.......

That's unlikely. Third-party candidates don't do as well as Perot did if not for widespread disillusionment with the party's standard bearer. Bush was very unpopular in 1992. While it's true that lots of his supporters did break ranks and vote for Perot, this was mostly because of Bush's unpopularity, not because Perot was some sort of genius. Most people simply do not vote for a third party candidate with no chance of winning, just because they perceive him as "better" than the party's nominee. They only vote for the third party candidate when they're disgusted with the party's nominee to the point that they can't bring themselves to vote for him.

For many people, voting for Perot was a way of voting "Not Bush and Not Clinton."

 

[Iriemon]

The Democrats might be surprised just how much, especially if Obama ends up being a weak candidate and especially weak on national security. Gingrich can bring a good story, the wel-fare reform he fought for against Clinton worked and there are a lot of people in the middle who benefited from the economic expansion he can point to.

I thought Clinton signed the welfare reform bill?

 

[disneydude]

If Newt does run it will be as a Republican not as a Libertarian..He remembers what happened in 1992 when Perot ran as a 3rd party candidate and that gave the presidency to "Slick Willie"......Just think if Perot had not run we would have never heard of "Slick Willie" Clinton.......

If Newt does run in the primary as a Republican would you support him? Or would you go with someone like Giuliani who probably disagrees with you more on the issues but might be more electable.

 

[disneydude]

Oh no!!!!

Gingrich tells Christian group of affair

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

WASHINGTON - Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich was having an extramarital affair even as he led the charge against President Clinton over the Monica Lewinsky affair, he acknowledged in an interview with a conservative Christian group.

The honest answer is yes," Gingrich, a potential 2008 Republican presidential candidate, said in an interview with Focus on the Family founder James Dobson to be aired Friday, according to a transcript provided to The Associated Press. "There are times that I have fallen short of my own standards. There's certainly times when I've fallen short of God's standards."

Gingrich argued in the interview, however, that he should not be viewed as a hypocrite for pursuing Clinton's infidelity.....

Reports of extramarital affairs have dogged him for years as a result of two messy divorces, but he has refused to discuss them publicly.

Gingrich, who frequently campaigned on family values issues, divorced his second wife, Marianne, in 2000 after his attorneys acknowledged Gingrich's relationship with his current wife, Callista Bisek, a former congressional aide more than 20 years younger than he is.

His first marriage, to his former high school geometry teacher, Jackie Battley, ended in divorce in 1981. Although Gingrich has said he doesn't remember it, Battley has said Gingrich discussed divorce terms with her while she was recuperating in the hospital from cancer surgery.

Gingrich married Marianne months after the divorce.

"There were times when I was praying and when I felt I was doing things that were wrong. But I was still doing them," he said in the interview. "I look back on those as periods of weakness and periods that I'm ... not proud of."

Gingrich's congressional career ended in 1998 when he abruptly resigned from Congress after poor showings from Republicans in elections and after being reprimanded by the House ethics panel over charges that he used tax-exempt funding to advance his political goals.



http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070309/...ingrich_affair

I hope this doesn't effect his chances of getting the Republican nomination.
I can just hear all those people calling him a hypocrite coming forward.

C'mon conservatives you can forgive this man can't you? There is a big difference between Clinton getting a blow job and Gingrich having an extramarital affair because Clinton lied about his to the public. Gingrich only lied to his wife. Thats a HUGE difference.

 

[BubbaBob]

Oh no!!!!

Gingrich tells Christian group of affair

Damn that Newt...being totally honest...way WAY too honest for a politician...

BubbaBob

 

[Kandahar]

Damn that Newt...being totally honest...way WAY too honest for a politician...

Ya, clearly his infidelities make him a saint. :spin:

 

[Navy Pride]

If Newt does run in the primary as a Republican would you support him? Or would you go with someone like Giuliani who probably disagrees with you more on the issues but might be more electable.

I would not support a 3rd party candidate.........Rudy might surprise you.I have heard him say on Hannity and Colmes:

1. Gun Control: I am in favor of it in NYC but have no problem with guns in other rural areas of the country.

1. Abortion: I am pro life but would nominate judges along the lines of Scallia and Thomas who are strict constructionists and who interpret law not make it......

3. Gay Rights: I am for domestic partnerships.....The question was asked him "Why did you march in the Gay Rights Parade".......His answer, I marched in all parades in NYC..........

 

[Navy Pride]

That's unlikely. Third-party candidates don't do as well as Perot did if not for widespread disillusionment with the party's standard bearer. Bush was very unpopular in 1992. While it's true that lots of his supporters did break ranks and vote for Perot, this was mostly because of Bush's unpopularity, not because Perot was some sort of genius. Most people simply do not vote for a third party candidate with no chance of winning, just because they perceive him as "better" than the party's nominee. They only vote for the third party candidate when they're disgusted with the party's nominee to the point that they can't bring themselves to vote for him.

For many people, voting for Perot was a way of voting "Not Bush and Not Clinton."

It is common knowledge that Perot took many votes away from Bush...........Moderates were angry at Bush but they never would have voted for Clinton if it had been a 2 man race.......

 

[Navy Pride]

I thought Clinton signed the welfare reform bill?

He did and the balanced budget to thanks to the republicans and the contract with america.

 

[ChristopherHall]

I think he came forward because someone threatened to out him. This could get interesting.

 

[Kandahar]

I would not support a 3rd party candidate.........Rudy might surprise you.I have heard him say on Hannity and Colmes:

1. Gun Control: I am in favor of it in NYC but have no problem with guns in other rural areas of the country.

That's the same line that a lot of Democrats have used, but it's simply unacceptable to the NRA. Anyone who uses that line will get painted as some kind of extremist who is going to send the FBI to confiscate your guns.

1. Abortion: I am pro life but would nominate judges along the lines of Scallia and Thomas who are strict constructionists and who interpret law not make it......

He may be able to get the majority of pro-lifers behind him with this line...it's hard to tell. While he'll never be the favorite of the religious right, he might be able to at least get them to hold their noses and vote for him.

3. Gay Rights: I am for domestic partnerships.....The question was asked him "Why did you march in the Gay Rights Parade".......His answer, I marched in all parades in NYC..........

That line won't work. It will sound like :spin: ...because it is. Rudy Giuliani is very pro-gay rights, and he should be proud of that. It simply is not possible for him to hide this fact, considering he lived with a gay couple for a couple years.

 

[Stinger]

Quote:
Ok....Stinger you have now officially earned the title of the biggest Bush Apologist.

OK and we'll call you the biggest denier of facts, OK? Or you can directly address what I stated in a civil manner.

 

[Stinger]

I think he came forward because someone threatened to out him. This could get interesting.

This is old news, it was reported on back then. Yes he is inoculating himself from further scrutiny in the matter.

 

[Stinger]

I thought ...............?

When you agree to respond in kind to the questions you posed to others let me know.

 

[Iriemon]

When you agree to respond in kind to the questions you posed to others let me know.

LOL - I could care less what you do. Hold your breath. Baby.

 

[Stinger]

Originally Posted by Stinger
When you agree to respond in kind to the questions you posed to others let me know.

LOL - I could care less what you do. Hold your breath. Baby.

Don't think I said I was going to do anything, and no I don't hold my breath that you will.