Newt Gingrich for President in 08


PDA






ugaarguy
August 13, 2006, 08:37 AM
The joys of working strange night shifts in previous weeks have scrambled my biological, or circadian, if you prefer, rythm. Hence I am awake a 0520 L (MST). Ahh the joys of the USAF. Now, at 5 am there is very little on the TV, so I am watching "Fox and Friends" on the Fox News Channel. They have just talked about what politicians were at the Iowa State Fair; apparently getting in face time to prepare for the primaries and Iowa Caucus in anticipation of the 2008 presidential elections. They rattled off a long list of names, and Newt Gingrich was one of the most prominent of them. They also revealed that he has already purchased advertising time. Basically their "insider info" is showing that, contrary to his public statements, Mr. Gingrich is gearing up for a run at the White House. Being a Georgia resident (home of record) and gun owner, I felt it was duty to get the word out so we can get behind a Pro-Gun candidate early. IIRC John McCain was also on the list of politicians at the state fair.

If you enjoyed reading about "Newt Gingrich for President in 08" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
NukemJim
August 13, 2006, 09:34 AM
While I would love a progun POTUS and personally would even like a Newt as POTUS. There is no way in heck that he would ever get the nomination of his party or the office itself due to his sexual escapade(s) and past history.

NukemJim

Malum Prohibitum
August 13, 2006, 10:10 AM
Unfortunately, I agree with Jim. I am not sure he is electable.




www.georgiapacking.org

Nathan Williams
August 13, 2006, 10:15 AM
I am on the fence about Newt. Doubt he could get the nomination though. his history is well known and would be used to flame him to no end. Likely that McCain will be your most pro-gun potential.

Lone_Gunman
August 13, 2006, 10:24 AM
Newt doesnt stand a chance to get the nomination. He is way to conservative. The Republicans know they have to pick another liberal or neo-conservative to stand a chance in the general election.

GoRon
August 13, 2006, 10:24 AM
McCain will be your most pro-gun potential

Then all is lost:barf:

308win
August 13, 2006, 10:31 AM
Kasich

ugaarguy
August 13, 2006, 10:32 AM
There is no way in heck that he would ever get the nomination of his party or the office itself due to his sexual escapade(s) and past history.

Well it wasn't a problem for Clinton, and apparently murder isn't a problem for Ted Kennedy.

HankB
August 13, 2006, 10:34 AM
I've seen Newt making the rounds of some of the TV news & commentary shows . . . he's very passionate, superb at articulating his views, and would pretty much chew up and spit out any of the likely Democrat opponents in a debate.

BUT . . . if you think media is hard on Bush, just imagine the daily hysterics we'd be getting from ABC/NBC/CBS and most newspapers if Newt somehow did get the nomination!

We could - and almost certainly WILL - do worse (far worse!) than a Newt Gingrich/Tom Tancredo ticket.

ugaarguy
August 13, 2006, 10:57 AM
They just talked about Sen. Bill Frist, senate majority leader, also being at the Iowa State Fair when they rehashed it with another "analyst". With Newt's past, and McCain being a RINO, I think Sen. Frist may be our best hope.

Lone_Gunman
August 13, 2006, 11:00 AM
Frist has no charisma. Not gonna happen.

ugaarguy
August 13, 2006, 11:09 AM
Frist has no charisma. Not gonna happen.
We may be in deep doo doo then.

Air,Land&Sea
August 13, 2006, 11:11 AM
Newt will run and win. You heard it here first.

RioShooter
August 13, 2006, 11:13 AM
Newt gets my vote. If not Newt, I'll vote for Giuliani.

Lone_Gunman
August 13, 2006, 11:14 AM
If Newt gets the nomination, then Hillary will be our next president.

Specialist
August 13, 2006, 11:21 AM
Newt for president and Condoleezza Rice on the ticked for Vice President.
Wouldn't that be an upset to Hilliary and the Demo camp! :neener:

Silver Bullet
August 13, 2006, 11:29 AM
I'd certainly vote for Newt before I'd vote for McCain. I'd vote for McCain before I'd vote for Giuliani. I'd vote for Giuliani before I'd vote for most Dems.

Air,Land&Sea
August 13, 2006, 11:29 AM
The only way a Republican will win is if a Republican runs.

longeyes
August 13, 2006, 11:33 AM
If we want to save our gun rights, we'd better keep Congress and hope we can get one more 2A-respecting Justice on SCOTUS.

Anyone elected to the Presidency from now on in this age of talk radio, blogs, and the media machine will have been flayed to the bone and all but denuded of the ability to effectively govern. All of them will run on expanding the state, entitlements, and bread and circuses. Most important will be the spine to protect this nation militarily from the manifest threats gathering around us.

The way things are going globally it will be more important to focus on the local and personal rather than the fabled lives of kings and saints. Count on a higher level of chaos that we've been used to.

tulsamal
August 13, 2006, 11:37 AM
Unfortunately, I agree with Jim. I am not sure he is electable.

He's ever bit as electable as Hillary!

Newt CAN get the GOP nomination. Especially if the main candidates against him are from New York City and MA. McCain would be tougher. That man has already lined up a bunch of Bush's campaign workers. He is trying very hard to get the right wing of the party to give him a chance. They don't trust him right now but he's still got two years to work on them. I don't like/trust McCain myself. BUT... he can always trot out his voting record. He has voted like one of the most conservative Senators, period. He talks to the media like a more "middle of the road maverick" but he actually votes in a very conservative way. I'm more concerned about his legendary temper than I am about any "secret liberal leanings." I just don't think his personality is right for President.

Back to Newt, he could win the nomination if McCain doesn't. His "electability" is going to depend on who the Democrats nominate. If they had any brains, they would pick somebody who is seen as a "moderate." Somebody like Bill Richardson. If the Democratic Party rallied around somebody like that, Newt wouldn't have much of a chance. The entire left would vote for the Democrat. And a whole bunch of "soccer moms" and "swing voters" would go for the moderate. Especially since the GOP nominee would be see as "too extreme." But that all changes if the whole Lieberman fiasco is going to take place nationwide. If the Democrats refuse to nominate a moderate and insist on a _very_ left wing candidate, that makes somebody like Newt more acceptable. Whether it is Hillary or somebody to her left, it would turn out to be real battle for those center voters.

I would like to see a Gingrich/Rice ticket myself. But I'm not sure she would even want to do the VP thing. Otherwise I would happen with a Gingrich/J.C. Watts ticket. Newt can rip up nearly anybody the Democrats put forward in a debate. And J.C. can just be flat out charming. He's a really hard person to dislike.

Gregg

Ieyasu
August 13, 2006, 11:55 AM
I agree with those posters who state Newt doesn't have a chance, and I can't stand McCain. I wish Kay Bailey Hutchison would run, but she'd probably have more trouble getting the nomination than winning the general election.

longeyes
August 13, 2006, 12:37 PM
I don't like/trust McCain myself. BUT... he can always trot out his voting record. He has voted like one of the most conservative Senators, period. He talks to the media like a more "middle of the road maverick" but he actually votes in a very conservative way. I'm more concerned about his legendary temper than I am about any "secret liberal leanings."

McCain-Feingold? McCain-Kennedy?

Let's elect an empty shell for President and have Newt be his or her brains, standing beside the royal throne and whispering wisdom.

308win
August 13, 2006, 12:43 PM
Let's elect an empty shell for President and have Newt be his or her brains, standing beside the royal throne and whispering wisdom.

Yes, lets since that approach has worked so well the last 6 years.:rolleyes:

Lone_Gunman
August 13, 2006, 08:38 PM
308 Win beat me too it.

That experiment has already failed once, lets not repeat it!

the 22 junkie
August 13, 2006, 08:47 PM
I think we oughta draft Ron Paul for prez. :evil:

HankB
August 13, 2006, 09:16 PM
Well if Newt ran - and won - he'd be making SCOTUS appointments.

He might even nominate a woman.

Wouldn't it be fun to watch Ann Coulter's confirmation hearings? :evil:

redneck2
August 13, 2006, 09:25 PM
Well it wasn't a problem for Clinton, and apparently murder isn't a problem for Ted Kennedy.Most Republicans think of themselves as having morals (true or not). Dem's....not so much. More into smooth talk, freebie handouts, and empty promises.

Wiley
August 13, 2006, 10:13 PM
I'm from the Ga. 6th district. The last time Newt ran for office he was elected and the very next day the SOB bailed. :fire:

I couldn't trust him to serve if he was elected. Couldn't trust him to do what he was elected to do if he served. He's a useless POS

dragongoddess
August 13, 2006, 10:23 PM
Be careful what you wish for. The republicans are authoritarians. At least the Demos are open and honest about wanting your guns. One day you will wake up to a knock on the door and the ATF is there because your republican candidate doesn't want armed citizens so they have come for your guns.
Governments fear their people and are down right scared of armed citizens and will come for your guns. Its going to happen folks. Sad to say it but the ones who do this will be our gun loving republicans. The ones we trusted to protect us.

longeyes
August 13, 2006, 10:24 PM
Hey, it's not the empty shell, it's the mouth whispering in the ear. If Bush had Newt instead of Rove, things might be a little different. But I jest...

Newt is all high Enlightenment on the outside and all Darkness within. I hear there's an ex-wife he left in the lurch at a most inopportune time...

grampster
August 13, 2006, 10:51 PM
Potus should be Everyman. That gives leave for quite a lot of allowances. Newt is an historian and understands the concepts of what America is all about, and where it should go. He is one of the best public speakers and debators in America today. He has charisma. Love him or hate him, he has charisma.
He is a true Conservative. He is also a politician. He is a leader. We need all of the virtues that he has. America forgave or chose to give Clinton a pass in the interest of a.) the feel goody lefty smarm and b.) the fact he was an underdog because of his peccadillo's.

Newt is electable because he is a known thing and he has not betrayed his conservative center. America is conservative at it's core. The rest of it is baggage that all the big ego's carry around and can be turned to political advantage.

beerslurpy
August 13, 2006, 11:02 PM
I personally think we could do a lot worse than Newt. In 08, we probably will.

I like newt on ideas, on charisma, on fiscal policy and on guns. His heart is in the right place and I think he would be ten times better than either McCain or Hillary.

Ann Coulter is a funny troll, but she should not be in a position of power. Certainly not a SCOTUS seat. There are far more worthy candidates that have been groomed for far longer. Janice Rogers Brown is the home run I am really waiting for.

Robert J McElwain
August 14, 2006, 10:38 AM
Gingrich is a poor candidate because he won't be able to overcome the "lying S.O.B." title. Remember his "Contract with America"? Do you also remember him admitting, a few years later, that it was all a lie and none of them had any intention, ever, of trying to fulfill it?

Do you think he'd lie again?

Bob

Thin Black Line
August 14, 2006, 11:31 AM
If Newt gets the nomination, then Hillary will be our next president.

+1. Between Newt's family values stumbling block and his comment that
American's who disagree with him on the war in Iraq are "insurgents", he
would inevitably say something more than stupid on a presidential campaign
trail. We would not just shoot himself in the foot, he'd blow off his entire leg
and Hillary, no mental marathon runner herself, would have no problem
walking right past him.

Be careful what you wish for. The republicans are authoritarians. At least the Demos are open and honest about wanting your guns.

Yes, you can vote for evil or lesser evil. That's the way the two-headed
hydra has been set up. The parties effectively divide up their pro-con
platforms so you're going to give up something either way. Your rights get
whittled down a little more with each administration. Think of our fedgov
as bad music that keeps getting the balance knob turned from the right to
the left, but at the same time it just keeps getting louder and louder so that
anything we have to say against or about it is just drowned out.

tulsamal
August 14, 2006, 12:14 PM
I wrote:

I don't like/trust McCain myself. BUT... he can always trot out his voting record. He has voted like one of the most conservative Senators, period. He talks to the media like a more "middle of the road maverick" but he actually votes in a very conservative way. I'm more concerned about his legendary temper than I am about any "secret liberal leanings."



And the response was:

McCain-Feingold? McCain-Kennedy?

You are pulling out his highly public "maverick" ideas. I'm talking about his documented voting record as a Senator. Check out his voting record scores below.

And he has realized that one of the areas that Bush and many in the GOP are vulnerable with the "GOP faithful" is the way they have ignored their fiscal rhetoric. All that talk about small government and cutting the debt.

McCain has been criticizing Republicans mostly from the right, shrewdly bolstering both his anti-establishment and conservative credentials--largely through appeals to what he calls "one of the bases of the Republican Party, a very important one, that believes in fiscal restraint and fiscal discipline." McCain has signed a "No Pork Pledge," fought against wasteful bridges in Alaska and urged deep cuts to nondefense and non-homeland-security-related spending--cuts that Democratic Senate minority leader Harry Reid dubs "immoral." At a recent appearance before the ultraconservative Heritage Foundation, McCain described himself as a "Barry Goldwater Republican" who "revere[s] Ronald Reagan and his stand of limited government." The routine has won him praise from the likes of National Review editor Rich Lowry, who recently wrote: "For the first time in years, conservatives have listened to McCain talk about a high-profile domestic issue and have nodded their heads vigorously."

In fact, McCain has always been far more conservative than either his supporters or detractors acknowledge. In 2004 he earned a perfect 100 percent rating from Phyllis Schlafly's Eagle Forum and a 0 percent from NARAL. Citizens Against Government Waste dubs him a "taxpayer hero." He has opposed extension of the assault-weapons ban, federal hate crimes legislation and the International Criminal Court. He has supported school vouchers, a missile defense shield and private accounts for Social Security. Well before 9/11 McCain advocated a new Reagan Doctrine of "rogue-state rollback."

"He's a foreign policy hawk, a social conservative and a fiscal conservative who believes in tax cuts but not at the expense of the deficit," says Marshall Wittmann, a former McCain staffer and conservative activist who now works at the Democratic Leadership Council. McCain's ideology resembles an exotic cocktail of Teddy Roosevelt, Barry Goldwater and Ronald Reagan--a conservative before conservatism was bankrupted by fundamentalism and corporatism. His centrist reputation simply proves how far right the center has shifted in Republican politics. "The median stance for Senate Republicans in the early 1970s was significantly to the left of current GOP maverick John McCain," write political scientists Jacob Hacker and Paul Pierson in their book Off-Center. "By the early 2000s, however, the median Senate Republican was essentially twice as conservative--just shy of the ultraconservative position of Senator Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania."

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20051212/berman

As much as I worry about his temperment, if I'm forced to choose between Hillary and McCain, I'll be voting for McCain! I expect to voting for somebody else in the GOP Primary though.

Gregg

longeyes
August 14, 2006, 12:35 PM
McCain-Feingold? McCain-Kennedy?

You are pulling out his highly public "maverick" ideas. I'm talking about his documented voting record as a Senator. Check out his voting record scores below.

No, I'm not, rather I'm citing two well-advertised and critically important instances when McCain showed he could "cooperate" with people who have America's worst interests at heart. I suppose these days that's called reaching out and unifying America? He will be remembered, by me and some others, for those two "towering" bills with his name attached, two monuments to his fatuity.

Henry Bowman
August 14, 2006, 01:15 PM
Remember his "Contract with America"? Do you also remember him admitting, a few years later, that it was all a lie and none of them had any intention, ever, of trying to fulfill it?Actually, I remember each and every term being fulfilled. All items received an up or down vote within the first days of the new Congress and all but one passed. Where do you hear this nonsense?

wmenorr67
August 14, 2006, 02:14 PM
At this point in time it is too soon to tell who is going to be the lesser of several evils. You never know who may come out of the woodwork to run. Right now I don't believe I could vote for McCain unless he was running against Billary. McCain cannot be trusted.

Robert J McElwain
August 14, 2006, 02:53 PM
Actually, I remember each and every term being fulfilled. All items received an up or down vote within the first days of the new Congress and all but one passed. Where do you hear this nonsense?

Yep. And then it all died in the Republican controlled Senate. And Newt did very little to change that. And, as I said, a few years after he left office, he pretty much admitted that the "Contract" was meant only as a campaign gimmick.

Bob

Thin Black Line
August 14, 2006, 03:18 PM
Yep. And then it all died in the Republican controlled Senate. And Newt did very little to change that. And, as I said, a few years after he left office, he pretty much admitted that the "Contract" was meant only as a campaign gimmick.

+1. Very little changed. He's been somewhat critical about how postwar
Iraq has been managed, but given the statements below he would seem to
have little problem with continuing the neocon policy of globalist regime
change:


National Security in the 21st Century: Findings of the Hart-Rudman Commission
Speaker: Warren B. Rudman, U.S. Senate
Moderator: Charles G. Boyd, director, Washington Program, Council on Foreign Relations
Speakers: Lee H. Hamilton
Gary Hart, U.S. Senate
Newt Gingrich, U.S. Congress

September 14, 2001
Council on Foreign Relations
....
NG: Chuck, can I just comment for a second? Lee said something that I think I want to explicitly either disagree with or say in a different way and see if in fact we do disagree. Itís very important to distinguish between terrorism based on individual or very, very small group acts, and terrorism which can only function with state sponsorship. The operation against us on Tuesday could not have existed in a world in which terrorists were not harbored, protected and financed by states. Yes, you can get a car bomb somewhere. But if Iran doesnít pay for Hesbolah, Hesbolah doesnít have very much money. If there arenít places that sustain Bin Ladenís forces, if he doesnít have three training camps in Sudan, if he doesnít have refuge in Afghanistan, itís very hard to be successful. Can you do Oklahoma City? Yes. We saw it happen from an American, not a foreigner. Can people who hate you have some impact? Yes. But organized, systematic terrorism, and terrorism we describe, weapons of mass destruction, require states still to this day, with only a few exceptions. And if you looked at the one effort in Japan to use seren(?) gas, done by people without state support, without training, without practice, it is a much more sufferable problem. And what we have today is a definable problem. And I would say what Lee said from a different angle. (A), if all we do is bomb some people, we are very foolish. We need to defeat these organizations, and we need to force the states that sponsor them to quit sponsoring them or replace their regimes. (B), for the Middle East at large, for Muslims at large, we should aggressively be reaching out economically and in other ways to create a better future. If you were a Palestinian whose child was faced with a future Palestinians currently face, you would be in despair.

The United States historically has been a country which offered hope as well as threat. In the end we rebuilt Japan and Germany and Italy, we didnít just bomb them and walk off. And we have to find a way to reach out to the non-fanatics and say to them, ďWe want to work to create a better life with you.Ē This has got to be a serious strategy at a regional level, and not just a series of random military pinpricks. But I donít think we should kid ourselves. The United States of America and its allies, if they want to, can break the back of state sponsored terrorism. and probably do it within two to three years.
....

Oh, yeah, definitely presidential material.


NG: No, but I think this is an extraordinary test of America in the world. I mean, again Iím going to say my view, but this is not the Commissionís view. We are at war. Itís not a question of do we want to declare a war, we are at war. We have been at war for a long time. The Cole being attacked was an act of war. Our young men and women being killed at the airfield at Kohbar(?) Barracks was an act of war. We have opponents who are open about this, they donít hide. What are Bin Ladenís goals? Itís not just Israel. Itís to drive America out of the Middle East. He says it openly. As long as we are buying oil, as long as we are there, we are an infringement on his fanatical beliefs.

So letís start with that. If we are at war, we have the capacity. We may not think itís desirable, we may not think itís worth the cost, but letís be clear what weíre talking about. We have the capacity to replace the government of Afghanistan probably without putting any American troops in the country by simply paying enough Afghans who donítÖThe Taliban would not win a popularity contest. It is a ruthless, vicious dictatorship imposed in a country, and itís in the middle of a civil war. And if we said tomorrow morning, ďWeíre prepared to pay up to 100,000 Afghans, and train them, if we had the support of Pakistan and Tajikistan,Ē the odds are pretty good that the Taliban would lose, and lose fairly decisively.

Where do I send the campaign donations.....


If we were to say on the Sudan, which is a much more accessible country than Afghanistan, the current regime is a vicious, slave owning regime which has killed southerners, Africans, has killed well over a million Africans, is a despicable regime, and it has two choices. It can kick out all the terrorists or it can cease to exist as a regime. I think the idea of anything short of that being our goal, after losing thousands of Americans in our own cities, is lunacy. And I agree with whoever said earlier, to go in and bomb them and not replace the regime is insanity. What itís going to do is create another generation of martyrs who are then preparedÖyouíll presently have the Bin Laden brigade working to get germ warfare.

So I think our goal has to be to say to the world, ďWe will not tolerate state sponsored and state supported and state harbored terrorism.Ē Secretary Powell has said it, the President has said it, Under Secretary Wolfowitz has said it. If we mean it, if our words have meaning, then we have to be engaged in a coercive strategy, not a consensual strategy, for those regimes which are dictatorships repressing and killing their own people, and prepared to sustain terrorism as an explicit state policy.


This sounds like the current administration.....yes, sir, may I have another....

FreedomKommando
August 14, 2006, 04:12 PM
Newt doesnt stand a chance to get the nomination. He is way to conservative.

"To be a conservative in this country means to hold a deep and implacable attachment to the regime insofar as it is run by the Republican Party. Note that I’m not saying that this is a corruption of the term “conservative” or a misunderstanding. This is what the word means in reality, and there is nothing that can be done about it." Lew Rockwell, Republicans and Communists. (http://amconmag.com/2006/2006_08_28/article18.html)

BUT . . . if you think media is hard on Bush,

No, not at all. They are pretty easy on him.

They just talked about Sen. Bill Frist, senate majority leader, also being at the Iowa State Fair when they rehashed it with another "analyst". With Newt's past, and McCain being a RINO, I think Sen. Frist may be our best hope

While in medical school, Frist obtained cats from animal shelters, under pretense of adoption as pets, for school research experiments in which he killed the animals. In a 1989 autobiography, Frist described (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Frist_medical_school_experiments_controversy)how he "spent days and nights on end in the lab, taking the hearts out of cats, dissecting each heart." After some time, Frist said "[I] lost my supply of cats," so he chose to deceive animal shelters, an act which he described as "heinous and dishonest."

"Heinous and dishonest." Sounds like he is eminently qualified to be president. ;)

Frist has no charisma. Not gonna happen.

Whenever I examine a politican said to have "charisma," my first instinct is to grab for my wallet.

We may be in deep doo doo then.

We pretty much are. It'll probably boil down to President McCain or President H. Clinton.

Newt gets my vote. If not Newt, I'll vote for Giuliani.

Boot-licking statists, both of them.

I think we oughta draft Ron Paul for prez.

President Ron Paul......I'd love to see it. Are you going to his birthday this weekend in Surfside? I will be there.

Wouldn't it be fun to watch Ann Coulter's confirmation hearings?

Would love to see her have to answer questions under oath. Would make for some lively theatre.

Most Republicans think of themselves as having morals (true or not). Dem's....not so much. More into smooth talk, freebie handouts, and empty promises.

Every Democrat I have ever met thinks of himself as more moral than the typical Republican. As for "smooth talk, freebie handouts, and empty promises," that pretty much describes both parties.

When Newt was in Congress, for example, he made sure that his congressional district received more federal dollars per capita than just about any other.

Newt fooled around on his first wife, Jackie Battley.
In 1977 Newt Gingrich received an extramarital blowjob from Anne Manning, who was herself married. She explained later: "We had oral sex... He prefers that modus operandi because then he can say, 'I never slept with her.'"
Feb 1981 - Newt Gingrich finally divorces Jackie. He had her served with divorce papers while she was in the hospital receiving treatment for cancer.
Aug 1981 - Newt Gingrich marries Marianne Ginther.
Jul 1983 - Newt Gingrich demands that the House expels fellow Congressmen Daniel Crane and Gerry Studds for having affairs with Congressional pages.
17 Jan 1997 - The House ethics committee fines Newt $300,000 for financial misdeeds.

We need all of the virtues that [Newt] has.

Oh really? Hypocrisy, adultery, cheating, ever worshipful of state power? If those are his virtues, then I we don't even want to hear about his vices.

Phetro
August 14, 2006, 05:27 PM
McCain has been criticizing Republicans mostly from the right, shrewdly bolstering both his anti-establishment and conservative credentials--largely through appeals to what he calls "one of the bases of the Republican Party, a very important one, that believes in fiscal restraint and fiscal discipline." McCain has signed a "No Pork Pledge," fought against wasteful bridges in Alaska and urged deep cuts to nondefense and non-homeland-security-related spending--cuts that Democratic Senate minority leader Harry Reid dubs "immoral." At a recent appearance before the ultraconservative Heritage Foundation, McCain described himself as a "Barry Goldwater Republican" who "revere[s] Ronald Reagan and his stand of limited government." The routine has won him praise from the likes of National Review editor Rich Lowry, who recently wrote: "For the first time in years, conservatives have listened to McCain talk about a high-profile domestic issue and have nodded their heads vigorously."

In fact, McCain has always been far more conservative than either his supporters or detractors acknowledge. In 2004 he earned a perfect 100 percent rating from Phyllis Schlafly's Eagle Forum and a 0 percent from NARAL. Citizens Against Government Waste dubs him a "taxpayer hero." He has opposed extension of the assault-weapons ban, federal hate crimes legislation and the International Criminal Court. He has supported school vouchers, a missile defense shield and private accounts for Social Security. Well before 9/11 McCain advocated a new Reagan Doctrine of "rogue-state rollback."

"He's a foreign policy hawk, a social conservative and a fiscal conservative who believes in tax cuts but not at the expense of the deficit," says Marshall Wittmann, a former McCain staffer and conservative activist who now works at the Democratic Leadership Council. McCain's ideology resembles an exotic cocktail of Teddy Roosevelt, Barry Goldwater and Ronald Reagan--a conservative before conservatism was bankrupted by fundamentalism and corporatism. His centrist reputation simply proves how far right the center has shifted in Republican politics. "The median stance for Senate Republicans in the early 1970s was significantly to the left of current GOP maverick John McCain," write political scientists Jacob Hacker and Paul Pierson in their book Off-Center. "By the early 2000s, however, the median Senate Republican was essentially twice as conservative--just shy of the ultraconservative position of Senator Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania."

This is a propaganda piece designed to convince conservatives to vote for him, so leftists get what they want no matter which candidate wins. Some idiot who works for the LEFTISTS is going to be trusted to tell us what McCain stands for? Please.

If you want to lose a ton of rights, elect Hitlery. If you want to lose 1,800 pounds of rights, elect McCain.

Phetro
August 14, 2006, 05:29 PM
"To be a conservative in this country means to hold a deep and implacable attachment to the regime insofar as it is run by the Republican Party. Note that I’m not saying that this is a corruption of the term “conservative” or a misunderstanding. This is what the word means in reality, and there is nothing that can be done about it." Lew Rockwell, Republicans and Communists.

Who cares what Lew Rockwell's wrong opinion of what the word means is?

While in medical school, Frist obtained cats from animal shelters, under pretense of adoption as pets, for school research experiments in which he killed the animals. In a 1989 autobiography, Frist described how he "spent days and nights on end in the lab, taking the hearts out of cats, dissecting each heart." After some time, Frist said "[i] lost my supply of cats," so he chose to deceive animal shelters, an act which he described as "heinous and dishonest."

He should be rotting in jail for that. In fact, the penalty should be a lot more severe.

ArmedBear
August 14, 2006, 07:18 PM
I'd rather see Ron Paul as President.

However, if the other choices are Clinton, McCain, and/or Guiliani, I'd vote for Gingrich or Frist in a heartbeat.

Given a choice between someone who dissected some cats (instead of other cats, which also came from animal shelters, BTW) and someone who helped make Vince Foster a verb (posthumously, of course)? Someone who took gobs of money from Soros and changes his deep convictions for every different talk show? Someone who is a committed anti-gun politician who was saved only by 9/11?

It's important not to forget who these people REALLY are. All of them.

RealGun
August 14, 2006, 07:29 PM
However, if the other choices are Clinton, McCain, and/or Guiliani, I'd vote for Gingrich or Frist in a heartbeat.

All but Clinton are Republicans, so with that mix, I would say voting in the primaries will be critical for everyone who really cares. I have taken a real interest in Tancredo. McCain, Giuliani, Gingrich, and Frist all give me the creeps. Tancredo is not preoccupied with "values" and is serious about illegal immigration.

ArmedBear
August 14, 2006, 07:36 PM
All but Clinton are Republicans

Some would disagree, but technically, that's true. I couldn't think of a Democrat other than Hillary with any prospects for being a candidate. Then again, last time we got John Kerry, whom no one west of the Mississippi had heard of since the Nuclearn Freeze Movement idiocy, until 2004.

I would say voting in the primaries will be critical for everyone who really cares

Yes, sirreee, bob.
Agreed on all points.

(And I think that Libertarians may want to consider working to get better candidates in as R's and/or D's, rather than fielding whoever we might have this time and getting 1% for our efforts)

RioShooter
August 14, 2006, 08:09 PM
Quote:
Actually, I remember each and every term being fulfilled. All items received an up or down vote within the first days of the new Congress and all but one passed. Where do you hear this nonsense?

Yep. And then it all died in the Republican controlled Senate. And Newt did very little to change that. And, as I said, a few years after he left office, he pretty much admitted that the "Contract" was meant only as a campaign gimmick.

Exactly how does the Speaker of the House influence what happens in the Senate? Newt did his part; the Senate failed to support him.

MudPuppy
August 14, 2006, 11:43 PM
No doubt, Republicans will strip us of our right to bear arms slower than the Democrats...

Lupinus
August 14, 2006, 11:59 PM
at the very least he should make a go of it. Running the primarys cant hurt

Colt
August 15, 2006, 01:13 PM
If my choice is McCain or Guiliani, I'll sit this one out, no matter who they run against. I want a conservative, not a RINO. If I can't get it in 08, I'll wait for 12 or 16.

Even if the GOP looses Congress in 06 or 08, they'll most likely still have the senate. Which means the POTUS is going to be somewhat limited, SCOTUS nominations aside. A deadlocked government is preferred by many to a GOP or DEM controlled government anway.

I refuse to elect a RINO. If that means losing the POTUS for 4 or 8 years, so be it. If we don't send a clear message to the GOP, the party will continue to deteriorate until it is completely indistinguishable from the DEMs. That, IMO, is more dangerous than putting even Hillary into office.

I won't vote for Hillary, but I won't vote against her. I also won't vote third party, because despite what some members here believe, it is a wasted vote. I won't reward a lost cause just because my first choice has lost its way.

RealGun
August 15, 2006, 01:55 PM
If we don't send a clear message to the GOP, the party will continue to deteriorate until it is completely indistinguishable from the DEMs.

Any such message won't be at all clear. The election outcome will appear that the country's sentiments are simply with the Democrats.

I won't vote for Hillary, but I won't vote against her.

Pouting is not going to get the job done. If this thread is in any way about guns, you will incorporate some concern about keeping Democrats at bay.

Colt
August 15, 2006, 02:03 PM
Any such message won't be at all clear. The election outcome will appear that the country's sentiments are simply with the Democrats.

I disagree. The GOP leadership knows the voter breakdown. When they see expected numbers for Hillary from the Dems and factor in the 2-4% of the undecided's, they'll realize that a good portion of their base sat home. The message will be crystal clear.

Pouting is not going to get the job done. If this thread is in any way about guns, you will incorporate some concern about keeping Democrats at bay.

No pouting here. Compromising my principals won't get the job done, either. The fact that guns are not my primary voting motive is relevant to this thread, if only to demonstrate to other members that 2A rights aren't the cornerstone of the conservative base. 2A is a consideration, but it's a far cry from the top of my list.

ArmedBear
August 15, 2006, 02:04 PM
Any such message won't be at all clear. The election outcome will appear that the country's sentiments are simply with the Democrats.

Exactly.

Just how does anyone think that voting for the Democrats, whose luminaries generally stand for gun confiscation, wealth redistribution by force, censorship, thought crimes, institutionalized racism, and bureaucratic authoritarianism, will convince Republicans that they need to do more for gun rights, budget/tax cuts, freedom of speech, simpler laws that uphold freedom, colorblind policies, and limited government?!?:uhoh:

ArmedBear
August 15, 2006, 02:07 PM
The message will be crystal clear.

Yup.

The message will be: "We need to be more like Hillary to win elections!"

Note the whole "compassionate conservatism" horse manure. It was simply a Republican declaration that they, too, can support a bloated nanny state just like the Democrats.

We need to find a better way to send the message. "Compromising principles" isn't the only alternative.

Moreover, if you ever agree 100% with a candidate, you should take a good, long look at yourself. It's possible, but it definitely gives pause. It's happened to me; I volunteered for the guy. But I still thought about it first.:)

Colt
August 15, 2006, 02:08 PM
Just how does anyone think that voting for the Democrats, whose luminaries ...

Reread my post. I said I wouldn't vote for a dem, nor against one. And I don't by the "staying home is a vote for the Dems" mentality. The GOP is quite capable of analyzing voter apathy. See also: Bob Dole.

Colt
August 15, 2006, 02:10 PM
Yup.

The message will be: "We need to be more like Hillary to win elections!"

The results of voter analysis will be clear.

Here's how:

Assume the breakdown of registerd voters is 48 GOP, 48 Dem, 4 Independant.

If Hillary gets 50, and McCain gets 40, it will be obvious what happened: GOP apathy. "Give us a better candidate"

Now if it wound up Hillary 60, and McCain with 40, then the message changes to "You need to be more like Hillary"

It's very simple, and not at all difficult for the GOP leadership to figure out. Happens in every election , to varying degrees.


edited to be a little more diplomatic.

ceetee
August 15, 2006, 02:13 PM
Potus should be Everyman. That gives leave for quite a lot of allowances.


POTUS should NOT be everyman. That's what we have now. If I ran for President would you vote for me? I wouldn't.

POTUS should be the best of the best of us. He should be a Constitutional historian. He should have had real jobs in his life where he had to work for a living. He should have the intelligence enough to be a successful CEO for any major corporation. He should have impeccable manners, and no skeletons in the closet.

He should be brave. He should have honor. He should have pride and morals. He should be everything we could ever hope to be, but can't.

Snake Eyes
August 15, 2006, 02:22 PM
He should be a Constitutional historian. He should have had real jobs in his life where he had to work for a living. He should have the intelligence enough to be a successful CEO for any major corporation. He should have impeccable manners, and no skeletons in the closet.


You realise, of course, that you have almost perfectly described Jimmy Carter....but not Ronald Reagan, GHW Bush or Shrub.

ArmedBear
August 15, 2006, 02:25 PM
He should be brave. He should have honor. He should have pride and morals. He should be everything we could ever hope to be, but can't.

Well that would rule out anyone with political experience.:D

RealGun
August 15, 2006, 02:27 PM
2A is a consideration, but it's a far cry from the top of my list. - Colt

We can tell.;)

ArmedBear
August 15, 2006, 02:27 PM
Reread my post. I said I wouldn't vote for a dem, nor against one. And I don't by the "staying home is a vote for the Dems" mentality. The GOP is quite capable of analyzing voter apathy. See also: Bob Dole.

What about being active in the primary process? What about informing the GOP of what your thoughts and intentions are?

Wouldn't that be a lot more effective than just not voting? Sure, if it comes to McCain vs. Clinton, I can see your stance.

But isn't it as much your fault as anyone's if you do nothing to try to get someone else into the general election?

Byron Quick
August 15, 2006, 02:28 PM
No pouting here. Compromising my principals won't get the job done, either. The fact that guns are not my primary voting motive is relevant to this thread, if only to demonstrate to other members that 2A rights aren't the cornerstone of the conservative base. 2A is a consideration, but it's a far cry from the top of my list.

What is the 'cornerstone' of the 'conservative base?'

I've got one question. When will the conservatives of the Republican Party nominate a conservative for office-any national office- again? I haven't seen one since Ronald Reagan left office.

JerryM
August 15, 2006, 02:29 PM
I heard Newt recently, and agreed with everything he said. I would like for him to be the next President, but I don't think he has a chance.
BUT I did not think Bill Clinton could get elected either.

I really do not know who the front runners are now in the Republican party. I shudder to think McCain might be the next president, although I would prefer him to anyone I know of that might run in the Dems.

McCain is a liberal in my view, and not comparable to Newt. We still have a couple of years to see, but they go by fast.

Jerry

ArmedBear
August 15, 2006, 02:37 PM
McCain is a weak weathervane politician who masquerades as someone strong. He's not unprincipled in the sense that he's deliberately immoral; he's unprincipled in the literal sense that he appears to have no "first principles" whatsoever.

Clinton is someone who appears to have a strong agenda of her own, and there's not a bit of it that doesn't go against everything I want for this nation. Her weathervane is just how she manages her facade.

That makes her even worse than McCain, in my view.

That said, I'd like to see a real classical liberal. I hate to use the word "conservative" because that's been co-opted, same as the word "liberal."

Colt
August 15, 2006, 02:37 PM
A lot of valid points above.

A little more background, maybe:

I do work at the local level. I have for the past 6 years. I go door to door, I spend hours at the call centers, help organize rallies, and strike up non-confrontational converstations with friends and co-workers who are receptive to discussion. I am no stranger to the school board meetings. I'm doing what I can to get good candidates into the stream. But as it stands, if I'm given a choice between a RINO and Hillary, my yard will not have a POTUS sign, and my car will be POTUS campaign sticker-free. I will go vote, but not for POTUS.

2A isn't my top voting priority. I have NRA and GOA memberships, shoot about every other weekend, and carry daily. 2A still isn't my top voting priority. Outside of this board and the others like it, I'm sure you'll find 2A isn't the top voting priority for the vast majority of voters. If that invalidates my opinion in this discussion, so be it. (Rolling eyeballs intentionally omitted.)

There is no cornerstone of the conservative base. Some people here are trying to make 2A that cornerstone. And I agree, Reagan was the last truly-conservative nominee. Even Bush, who I stronly supported, wasn't perfect. But he was clearly better than his opponent.

ArmedBear
August 15, 2006, 02:40 PM
Colt, that sheds a different light on your stance, and I agree with it all the more. Thanks for the clarification.

Colt
August 15, 2006, 02:51 PM
Thanks for the clarification.

My pleasure. It's amazing the degree to which an electronic medium can seem to separate mindsets that aren't really that far apart.

Looking back at the thread and my posts, your observations were well-founded. Glad we're on the same page now.

RealGun
August 15, 2006, 03:43 PM
Even Bush, who I stronly supported, wasn't perfect. But he was clearly better than his opponent. - Colt

So why not use that strategy again? You don't even know yet who will be a serious contender.

RealGun
August 15, 2006, 03:56 PM
When will the conservatives of the Republican Party nominate a conservative for office-any national office- again? I haven't seen one since Ronald Reagan left office. - Byron Quick

Believing you mean more than just President, I would call Senator Jim DeMint (R-SC) a conservative. He is a businessman, not a lawyer...less of a photo op smart ass than our senior Senator Lindsay Graham (R-SC). BTW DeMint is a former charter member of the Second Amendment House Caucus. If he has a fault, it is a preoccupation with "values" like so many other Republicans, especially Southern.

ORAG
August 15, 2006, 04:05 PM
"Gingrich is a poor candidate because he won't be able to overcome the "lying S.O.B." title.... Do you think he'd lie again?" Is he a politician or not. I thought they all lied and we generally vote for the one that lies in our favor. If I had my choice I would start a party called the NRA (Never Re-elect Anyone) except someone already has the Acronym sewed up.
Lets see, we voted for a president that did not understand the term Vision (Bush 41). A man that was so slick that he slept with half of the women in Arkansas and the current President that has spent more money than the most liberal Democrat. Oh hell, elect Hillary she must be good for a laugh.

Colt
August 15, 2006, 04:06 PM
RealGun,

Bush was about a 90% fit for me. McCain and I aren't even on the same page.

To me, voting for him would send the wrong message to the GOP, one of "I'll take any Republican you put on the ballot, so long as they are even marginally better than the Dem." I'd rather send the message "I know the GOP nominee won't be a perfect fit for me, but they'd better be close."

I don't want the GOP to pick their candidate based on who the dems are fielding. I want them to determine who their candidate will be based on whether or not they'll get my vote. It may take a losing year to drive that point home.

JerryM
August 15, 2006, 05:37 PM
[It may take a losing year to drive that point home.]

Unfortunately, it seems that a losing year does not drive much home. In the case of the President it is a losing 4 years, and that may include the Congress. I am not sure what the Republicans learned as a result of Perot and their loss to the Dems.

The 2nd is very important to me, but not as important as other issues.

Jerry

RealGun
August 15, 2006, 05:51 PM
To me, voting for him (McCain) would send the wrong message to the GOP, one of "I'll take any Republican you put on the ballot, so long as they are even marginally better than the Dem." I'd rather send the message "I know the GOP nominee won't be a perfect fit for me, but they'd better be close." - Colt

You don't know that McCain will be the candidate. Hillary is certainly not a sure thing either. Recall that John Kerry was a dark horse after Howard Dean self destructed as a strong front runner. After Lieberman's defeat, Hillary would appear to be in serious trouble over support for the Iraq war.

I don't want the GOP to pick their candidate based on who the dems are fielding. I want them to determine who their candidate will be based on whether or not they'll get my vote. It may take a losing year to drive that point home. - Colt

The candidate will be based upon the primaries, candidates picked by voters who care enough to come out for the primaries. The party elite do not pick these candidates, although they certainly can send campaign money in their direction and voice support for them.

You seem to have decided to be a rebel before candidates are declared and serious campaigning has even started. If you believe you are participating, I think you are wrong.

One place I do agree with you is that the party big wigs are probably sounding out Condoleeza Rice on her interest in running for office.

Colt
August 15, 2006, 05:57 PM
RG,

I think you may be confusing my posts with others.

All I've said is that a McCain/Clinton matchup won't get a vote either way from me. I didn't say anything about any other potential matchups.

The GOP picks the candidates by stocking the primaries. Again, you're trying to read my mind or confusing me with other posters, because I haven't "rebeled" against anyone, and as I've stated, I'm extremely active at the local level.

I also never mentioned Condi in any of my posts.

Is there more than one Colt on this board?

308win
August 15, 2006, 06:20 PM
After Lieberman's defeat, Hillary would appear to be in serious trouble over support for the Iraq war.
I don't believe that Connecticut is a bellweather for anything other than Mark Twains observation: "Truth is stranger than fiction, but it is because Fiction is obliged to stick to possibilities. Truth isn't." Connecticut was an annomily that won't be repeated anywhere else but with luck the liberal taliban won't recognize this until they have destroyed their credibility and dashed their ability to influence public opinion on the rocks of reality. But then what the hell do I know, I always was an optimist.:scrutiny:

RealGun
August 15, 2006, 09:11 PM
All I've said is that a McCain/Clinton matchup won't get a vote either way from me. I didn't say anything about any other potential matchups.

You said you wouldn't vote for a RINO. You said you wouldn't vote for or against Hillary. You made it clear that you would sit out the election if unable to vote FOR someone. If we all did that, we would be in serious trouble as gun owners.

But this is all so premature. The primaries are a couple years away.

The GOP picks the candidates by stocking the primaries.

By what means do they do that? Is there some conspiracy I haven't heard about.

JBusch8899
August 15, 2006, 10:25 PM
While I would embrace the opportunity for Newt Gingrich to be the next President of the United States, Gingrich solidifies the left's position every bit as much as Hillary Clinton solidifies the right.

The electable difference of the two is that Gingrich doesn't have charisma of the Clintons.

Secondly, the ignorant still fail to grasp the chief reasons for this country's economic success during the time Clinton was in office. One of those reasons was the balancing of the federal budget via Clinton's refusal to compromise and the subsequent Federal government shutdown.

Many still narrowly view the shutdown as negative and erroneously blame the entire proceedings on Gingrich. The Clinton spin machine won the PR war by brilliantly manipulating the press and redirecting the shutdown unto Congress.

If not Gingrich, whom may you ask? I have no idea.

Though the chances of a Washington insider being elected to the white house is statistically low.

PWK
August 15, 2006, 10:42 PM
What of retired General Tommy Franks?
definitly pro 2A, appears pretty conservative on other issues and would (I hope) put some real teeth in the war on terrorism.

ArmedBear
August 15, 2006, 10:53 PM
POTUS should be the best of the best of us. He should be a Constitutional historian. He should have had real jobs in his life where he had to work for a living. He should have the intelligence enough to be a successful CEO for any major corporation. He should have impeccable manners, and no skeletons in the closet.

He should be brave. He should have honor. He should have pride and morals. He should be everything we could ever hope to be, but can't.

There are some problems with finding such a President, to wit:

1. Despite all the stickers that declare that "Jesus Lives," nobody seems to have his mailing address.

2. Despite the fact that candidates from both parties like to talk about how they are on Jesus' side, if Jesus really showed up at a political convention, the room would empty faster than a high school kegger when the cops showed up.

So who the hell ELSE are you gonna find?

Colt
August 16, 2006, 09:23 AM
rg,

You made it clear that you would sit out the election if unable to vote FOR someone. If we all did that, we would be in serious trouble as gun owners.

It's become obvious to me that you're a one-issue 2A voter. I am not. Continually voting for the lesser of 2 evils is not the solution. It may help some voters reconcile their conciences, and it makes for a funny line in Master and Commander, but it's not a viable long-term political strategy.

Newt Gingrich - previously Speaker of the House - Did you vote him into that role? No? You mean the GOP leadership did? Hmmm. Does GOP endorsement mean anything to you? How about Pres Bush's backing of Specter over Toomey in the last senate primary? Hmmm. Sounds like GOP stocking the ballot to me.

Yes, it's true that the votes are the final deciding factor, but to think that the party leadership doesn't have any influence is naive at best.

ceetee
August 16, 2006, 09:46 AM
There are some problems with finding such a President, to wit:

1. Despite all the stickers that declare that "Jesus Lives," nobody seems to have his mailing address.

2. Despite the fact that candidates from both parties like to talk about how they are on Jesus' side, if Jesus really showed up at a political convention, the room would empty faster than a high school kegger when the cops showed up.

So who the hell ELSE are you gonna find?

I was specifically responding to the poster that said out President should be like one of us. I heard a lot of that bushwa before the 2000 election. People that should've known better saying they were going to vote for Bush because he had been a coke addict, and an alcoholic, and a womanizer, and he ran away from his duty in the National Guard.

Because he's "one of us".

I asked the specific question then (and I asked it now, too...) "If I ran for President, would you vote for me? Do you think I'm qualified?" The resounding answer was "No". We are the employers, looking to hire the man to fill the most important job in the nation. That man we pick should embody the best of the best of all of us.

In my opinion, Newt's not the man for the job.

RealGun
August 16, 2006, 10:04 AM
Yes, it's true that the votes are the final deciding factor, but to think that the party leadership doesn't have any influence is naive at best. - Colt

If the "party leadership" does have influence, you will need to come up with at least relevant examples of actively "stocking a ballot".

Candidates run because they want to. They can be talked into it or out of it and will ultimately be influenced by how much money they can raise.

If you enjoyed reading about "Newt Gingrich for President in 08" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!