Mannlicher
Member
I like Newt. He has my vote if he runs.
Gingrich May Run in 2008...
- Thread starter RocketMan
- Start date
- Status
CleverNickname
Member
308win
Member
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.
Mannlicher
Member
308 Win
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.
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
Member
Damnit you made me spit out my jelly bean
308win
Member
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.
Lone_Gunman
Member
I think the best way to put it is that Bush never denied having used cocaine when asked.
Marshall
Member
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.
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
Member
Regarding the reports of Gingrich's divorce, here's what Wikipedia has to say in their entry:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newt_Gingrich
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newt_Gingrich
You have to remember any one can add anything to Wikipedia, so take it with a grain of salt.
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.
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
Member
We seem to have quite a double standard when it comes to the importance of lying.
CAnnoneer
Member
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?
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?
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
Member
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.
- Status
