Gingrich May Run in 2008...

Status
Not open for further replies.
R

RocketMan

Member
Joined
Jun 8, 2003
Messages
427
Location
Hickory, NC
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 to expand...

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

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:
 
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.
 
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
Click to expand...

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.
 
Why are Newt or Rush unelectable? They are both intelligent, articulate and conservative. *** more could you ask for?
Click to expand...
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.
 
News to me. Is that dirt or fact? Got any references?
Click to expand...

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.
 
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?
 
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.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top