Gingrich May Run in 2008...


PDA






RocketMan
June 11, 2006, 09:21 PM
if No Front Runner Emerges.

So says the headline at the WP. The story is here.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/09/AR2006060901444_pf.html

Gingrich May Run in 2008 If No Front-Runner Emerges

By Juliet Eilperin
Washington Post Staff Writer
Saturday, June 10, 2006; A04

Former House speaker Newt Gingrich (R-Ga.) expects to run for president in 2008 if the contest for the Republican nomination still seems wide open late next year, he said yesterday.

In remarks that were critical of both parties' recent performance, Gingrich told a luncheon group of scholars and reporters at the Brookings Institution that he will make a decision in the fall of 2007 about running.

"If at that point there's still a vacuum . . . then we'll probably do something," Gingrich said, adding that his policy pronouncements have more weight if he is seen as a potential presidential candidate. "If you're interested in defining the idea context and the political context for the next generation of Americans, which I am, the most effective way to do that is to be seen as potentially available."



Click the link for the rest of the story.

Personally, while The Newt might make a good President, I think he carries too much personal baggage and has little chance of being elected.

Also, I don't know what his views on the 2A are. Anyone know anything about that?

If you enjoyed reading about "Gingrich May Run in 2008..." here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
CAnnoneer
June 11, 2006, 09:24 PM
He certainly will run. Winning however may be difficult, even with all the damage the RINOs have been doing.

Dbl0Kevin
June 11, 2006, 09:26 PM
Now there would be a candidate I could finally vote FOR instead of against the other guy. I'm afraid though he'd have trouble in the national election though.

longeyes
June 11, 2006, 09:48 PM
Well, he has the brain. The heart I have my doubts about.

xd9fan
June 11, 2006, 10:08 PM
seems a bit recycled to me.......

Zundfolge
June 12, 2006, 01:42 AM
Newt's a good guy, but he's unelectable.

Too easily demonized by the DNC controlled MSM (which despite the growing power of the new media is still the only thing close to a kingmaker out there).


Y'all think the hatred of Reagan and Bush by the left is vicious and vile, I can't imagine how bad it would be with Newt on the ticket.

Most people would get so caught up in the whole issue of character assassination that nobody would pay attention to the issues ... and Newt is an issues kinda guy.


Hell, Rush Limbaugh has just as good a chance as Newt.

beerslurpy
June 12, 2006, 01:48 AM
Oooh, I could vote for Newt. The contract with america is the main reason I am a republican instead of an independent/libertarian. To me he represents the hope of the party lol luke skywalker.

I hope he runs. But who for vice president?

One thing I always wondered about is why Rush Limbaugh isnt running for president. That would rule. He would probably get a shocking landslide.

Why are Newt or Rush unelectable? They are both intelligent, articulate and conservative. *** more could you ask for?

Diamondback6
June 12, 2006, 02:00 AM
Rush has said numerous times that he can't afford the pay cut. "Can't" or "won't"?

Either way, his right.

RocketMan
June 12, 2006, 03:04 AM
Why are Newt or Rush unelectable?

Among other things, Newt alledgedly abandoned his sick wife for another woman, and Limbaugh has the whole drug thing going on.

Shipwreck
June 12, 2006, 07:33 AM
What about that whole mess that made him step down from his position as Speaker of the House to begin w/.

I guess if ya give it time, people forget.

It was a few years ago that Jeb Bush got into trouble for cheating on his wife. At the time, I though - there goes his chances to try to be president 1 day - Now, it seems like everyone has forgotten.

beerslurpy
June 12, 2006, 08:36 AM
If JFK and Clinton can do it, I suppose anyone can.

HankB
June 12, 2006, 08:47 AM
Newt is one of the few GOP names I've heard mentioned seriously as a Presidential candidate that I could vote for, the other being George Allen.

Neither is perfect by any means, but as compared to McCain, Giuliani, or Frist, which would YOU rather have?

taliv
June 12, 2006, 09:40 AM
no, newt would make a good VP, but he can't headline the ticket.

a Ron Paul/Newt ticket would be acceptible, as would a Zell Miller/Newt ticket.

However, the best would be Ron Paul/Zell Miller or Zell Miller/Ron Paul

RealGun
June 12, 2006, 10:02 AM
It was a few years ago that Jeb Bush got into trouble for cheating on his wife.

News to me. Is that dirt or fact? Got any references?

RealGun
June 12, 2006, 10:15 AM
Why are Newt or Rush unelectable? They are both intelligent, articulate and conservative. *** more could you ask for? - beerslurpy

For starters, someone less smug about why government should be permeated with figments, acknowledgment of, and even rituals of Christianity. Attempts to acknowledge Jews with references to "Judeo-Christian" are not sincere.

One problem right away with either of these guys is abortion clouding other issues. I am making an assumption about Rush, who gets none of my attention, but am very clear on Gingrich.

Gingrich is like Tom Daschle, also a prospective candidate. Both were voted out of office but somehow are now presidential material, not able to let it go and find another line of work.:confused:

JesseJames
June 12, 2006, 10:19 AM
Can someone please fill me in on Newt Gingrich.
I know he's a very smart guy but seems like his personal life might be his Achilles heel.

armoredman
June 12, 2006, 10:30 AM
*sigh* Why won't Condi run???

Lupinus
June 12, 2006, 10:40 AM
I'd vote for Newt. Sure agianst some people he might not be electable but....consider who he is likly to run agianst. Hitlery? America would take Newt of that wench IMO.

As for Condi? I'd possibly vote for her. But there are electability issues. I'm not trying to sound racist (and yeah yeah I know, whenever someone says that they are about to) but she is a black woman. Black and Woman are two electability problems America doesn't seem willing to elect a black person or a woman so she has two pretty big electability problems based simply from her race and sex. It doesn't bother me none, and in general a lot of people couldn't care less, but a lot of them also aren't ready to put a black woman in the white house.

Dbl0Kevin
June 12, 2006, 10:44 AM
Gingrich is like Tom Daschle, also a prospective candidate. Both were voted out of office but somehow are now presidential material, not able to let it go and find another line of work

Wrong.

Tom Daschle was defeated for re-election by John Thune. Newt Gingrich left on his own after the impeachment of Pres. Clinton caused the party to lose seats in the House. He was never voted out of office.

AirForceShooter
June 12, 2006, 11:17 AM
ahh:
Newt is going to save us all.

He's not getting my vote.

AFS

Zundfolge
June 12, 2006, 11:26 AM
Why are Newt or Rush unelectable? They are both intelligent, articulate and conservative. *** more could you ask for?
Because the left hates Newt SO MUCH that they will pull out all the stops and the race will no longer be about the issues but about the personalities (and the left wins when you can make it about symbolism over substance).


The leftist run MSM still has some power in this country ... lets not get all cocky and think a few bloggers and FoxNews are enough to keep most of America from blindly accepting what they are told on the evening news.


For the record I'd probably knock little old ladies out of the way to vote for Newt, but running him would be a mistake because he's just got too much baggage.

Shipwreck
June 12, 2006, 11:29 AM
News to me. Is that dirt or fact? Got any references?

I live in TX, but it made the national news - I think it was around the time of GW Bush's re-election campaign.

References - sorry, not gonna spend my time researching it - but it was national news at the time.

dmallind
June 12, 2006, 12:00 PM
Well I'm on the left by THR strandards and actually I think Newt would be a candidate I could vote for. He's much more of a traditional Republican than the new breed with their strange combination of theocracy and new world order building, and if he carries on his earlier zeal for balanced budgets, more efficient government and a hands-off approach to social issues he could very well get my vote. Would need some persuading on some issues, but by no means an absolute "never in a million years" chance like Bush was or the likes of Rice would be.

I think you'll find "the left" (which is of course exactly as monolithic and unanimous as "the right" - i.e hardly at all) will consider Newt relatively non-threatening after the current regime. Perceprions change and all that. Of course he will be criticized - since when did any candidate for any party escape vicious criticism? - but from a policy point of view he would be less anathema than many other possibilities such as Frist.

It's actually kind of intriguing that there are some possibilities on the Republican ticket I could consider. Romney, Hagel, Gingrich - none of them are absolute no chances for me, and some I even prefer over certain Dem candidates like Kerry or god help us Kucinich (not sure if he'll try again). All are long shots for the Rep. nomination, but at this time there is no solid front runner and who knows what happens in the next year?

CAnnoneer
June 12, 2006, 05:04 PM
He has the right position on immigration and fighting for the future in a changing competitive world. However, some of his ideas on the powers of the executive are a bit disturbing for me.

Lone_Gunman
June 12, 2006, 05:08 PM
I think Newt is exactly what Hillary needs to assure victory.

Mannlicher
June 12, 2006, 05:46 PM
I like Newt. He has my vote if he runs.

CleverNickname
June 12, 2006, 07:09 PM
I live in TX, but it made the national news - I think it was around the time of GW Bush's re-election campaign.

References - sorry, not gonna spend my time researching it - but it was national news at the time.

You're thinking of Neil Bush (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neil_Bush#Marriage_and_divorce), son #3, not Jeb Bush, son #2.

308win
June 12, 2006, 07:20 PM
You're thinking of Neil Bush, son #3, not Jeb Bush, son #2.

You mean there are three of them!? They are like cockroaches, everytime you turn on the light there are more of them scurrying for the shadows.:what:

Mannlicher
June 12, 2006, 10:33 PM
308 Win
You mean there are three of them!? They are like cockroaches, everytime you turn on the light there are more of them scurrying for the shadows.

Yeah, kinda reminds you of the Kennedys. Well, almost. I don't recall any of the Bush boys killing anyone, raping anyone, or going into rehab.

Lupinus
June 12, 2006, 11:52 PM
You mean there are three of them!? They are like cockroaches, everytime you turn on the light there are more of them scurrying for the shadows.
Damnit you made me spit out my jelly bean :neener:

308win
June 13, 2006, 12:39 AM
Yeah, kinda reminds you of the Kennedys. Well, almost. I don't recall any of the Bush boys killing anyone, raping anyone, or going into rehab.

Well, the Shrub won't answer any questions about his substance abuse problems other than admit to the drunk driving charge in Maine. I seem to recall rumblings about nose candy and community service in Houston; must be a MoveON.org plot.:D

Lone_Gunman
June 13, 2006, 12:44 AM
I think the best way to put it is that Bush never denied having used cocaine when asked.

Marshall
June 13, 2006, 07:48 AM
I would vote for him. His best play would be in the debating of his liberal opponents. He's a smart and well spoken man, he has the ability to articulate his point of view in a very logical fashion. Ever see him on Fox News with the liberal Combs? It's hilarious.

gopguy
June 13, 2006, 09:49 AM
Newt is brilliant and I have always admired him. However the left and the media have so demonized him that he will have a hard time over coming that. His leaving wife #2 for a woman 20 years younger than him will upset the Chrisitan Right.....so he has a lot of things to overcome. However I think he would make a excellent president bagage or not.

BryanP
June 13, 2006, 10:08 AM
Regarding the reports of Gingrich's divorce, here's what Wikipedia has to say in their entry:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newt_Gingrich

Personal life

While in high school, Gingrich started to date his geometry teacher, Jackie Battley. On June 19, 1962, they were married. Their first child was born the following year.

In 1980, Gingrich separated from his first wife. Battley developed cancer: while she was in the hospital recovering from surgery, Gingrich tried to discuss the terms of a divorce. It has been reported that Gingrich served Battley divorce papers in the hospital.[9] In February 1981, the divorce was finalized, and in August 1981, Gingrich married his second wife, Marianne Ginther.

In December 1999, Gingrich divorced his second wife, Marianne, after she discovered that he had been carrying on an affair for the past five years with a House aide twenty-three years his junior, Callista Bisek. [10] Critics such as David Corn blasted him for hypocrisy, noting that this activity was concurrent with his leadership role in the impeachment of Bill Clinton during the Monica Lewinsky scandal and his ascension to speaker on a family values platform. On August 19, 2000, Gingrich married Bisek as his third wife.

gopguy
June 13, 2006, 11:41 AM
You have to remember any one can add anything to Wikipedia, so take it with a grain of salt.

David Corn blasted him for hypocrisy, noting that this activity was concurrent with his leadership role in the impeachment of Bill Clinton during the Monica Lewinsky scandal

Actually Newt was strangely quiet during the Lewinsky scandal. Really he did not say much at all. The impeachment was actually about the President of the United States committing perjury in a Sexual harassment lawsuit brought by Paula Jones. You might remember all the sexual harrasment laws given us by liberals.;) ...Anyway the accusation was Clinton, Gov of Arkansas threatened a Paula Jones, who was a state employee if she did not give him what he wanted. In the trial they tried to establish that Clinton had a proclivity to do this. In the process he was asked about Lewinsky and lied......Perjury, a felony.

So David Corn can rail all he wants. They guy as usual does not know of what he speaks.

Lone_Gunman
June 13, 2006, 12:49 PM
We seem to have quite a double standard when it comes to the importance of lying.

Dbl0Kevin
June 13, 2006, 12:53 PM
We seem to have quite a double standard when it comes to the importance of lying.

Indeed. There is a statutory difference between PERJURY and lying while not under oath.

CAnnoneer
June 13, 2006, 01:49 PM
I don't remember Billy marrying Paula or Monica after the respective "scandals".

And, why is sexual life of a leader important anyway? Julius Caesar was bisexual and had numerous affairs, many Romans liked little boys, Octavian Augustus liked little girls which were "procured" for him by his wife Livia, Napoleon had mistresses, Churchill was extremely unhappy with a cheating wife, Mitterrand showed up on public functions with his mistress AND his wife. Isn't it time for the religious right and the shrill leftists to admit that this is ultimately irrelevant?

raz-0
June 13, 2006, 06:31 PM
and, why is sexual life of a leader important anyway?

For the same reason a lot of people do not like gingrich. It's about how your rhetoric jibes with your actions, and he has a disheartening and well documented history of being a "My rules are for thee, not for me" kind of guy, and his new song and dance routine isn't jibing much better with past performance.

Newt got some people riled way back when making negative comments about gays. When newt tells you gays are bad out of one side of his mouth and says he loves his lesbian sister out of the other, you ask yourself what is up? Sure, he can go back to the love her but done condone her lifestyle routine, but that didn't play well back then. It won't play well now with the same crowd, and wil likely play worse with the current gay marriage movement.

When newt says traditionally family values are the only way to go, but doesn't come from a traditional family and has run through two wives already, you have to ask yoursefl if he has a leg to stand on. If non-tradition families aren't ok and capable of generating ok adults, how can we trust someone coming from the background he condemns others for being the product of?

When newt tells you we need to treat christianity with at least the respect accorded any other religion under the first amendment, but has previously touted christianity as the one true religion from his government seat. You have to ask if he is going to uphold the first amendment, or simply push christianity any way he can. The fist protects his religion, but does it protect yours? From a guy who demonstrateshis religious tolerance by basically jsut saying jews are ok because they are really part of christianity, I'm not getting a good feeling about that subject.

When he admits that in an economy shifting to a service base, the largest part of the service economy may be healthcare over the next 20 years, then goes on to say things will be cheaper and that part of the economy will be stronger by regulating the hell out of them, you have to question his sanity. Not to mention that it is unclear from his stance if he intends to increase or decrease federal subsidy of the healthcare industry. But even without that, regulating the IT infrastructure of healthcare, and then changing those specs before the industry has even achieved compliance is not a cost saving measure. Someone is paying it, and in the end that boils down to you and me vi premiums, taxes, or bigger doctor bills.

When you have a guy who has gotten all preachy about sexuality, sexual conduct, and moral behavior who runs around having affairs, it doesn't give you warm fuzzies that he is a man of integrity who wouldn't force a law down your throat unless he was willing to abide by it himself.

Then you have his strongest attributes, which is a general consistency of promoting fiscal conservatism. However, with his helthcare reform stance fairly nebulous, it's unclear if he's planning on shoving a huge portion of the economy further under government control and at the mercy of the government purse. Having the health of the federal budget represent an even larger slice of the GDP than it already does doesn't jibe with his seemingly conservative fiscal plan.

A Republican with a message that they will save the world by saving money and no real plan to make savings isn't any more realistic than a democrat with with a message they will save the world by spending money without any plan on where to get the funds. Both piss people off while undermining any credibility they may have. Fiscally, he espouses a good attitude, but not a lot of substance to back it up. Combine that with his history of not exactly practicing what he preaches or being a man of deep conviction on most of the subjects he makes noises about, and it doesn't buy him much cachet.

On top of that, he automatically inherits every problem of the bush administration. The abortion issue form bush gets amplified with newt's history as the prototype for the current "neocon" agenda in the eyes of mass media. Even deliberately looking, I can't find a good answer on his RKBA stance, which means there's a large base of issue voters who won't be swayed by his nomination, so he is entirely hoping one assumes he is the lesser of two evils. If the upcoming congressional elections go well for RKBA as far as seats, perception of the importance of the presidency may change. By being a Republican he is autmotaically wrong on the war to about half the population.

In realtiy, the race is less likely to be about issues than about the person. Newt is not a strong runner in that environment.

Honestly, the only positive thing I can say about the guy as a person is that when he took his lumps on conduct during hearings and on his sister, he drew a line and stood his gorund even if it didn't look good for him or favor his interests.

Admitting wrongdoing with dignity and loving your family more than your public image only get you so far when you sit back and ask "what problems is this guy going to cause for ME."

308win
June 13, 2006, 07:51 PM
You guys have been listening to Lush Rumbaugh too much. Clinton has been out of office for 6 years and what he did do/didn't do/shoulda done/ coulda done/yada yada yada is not relevant to what Gingrich or anyone else for that matter does/can do/etc. I would like to see him run with John Kasich as his running mate - South and Midwest would make a hell of a ticket and Kasich would be an asset to anyone. Maybe Kasich will run again although I am not totally convinced he is a bona fide 2A advocate.

If you enjoyed reading about "Gingrich May Run in 2008..." here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!