Newt Gingrich for President in 08

[RealGun]

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]

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]

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?!?

 

[ArmedBear]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

 

[RealGun]

2A is a consideration, but it's a far cry from the top of my list. - Colt

We can tell.

 

[ArmedBear]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

Colt, that sheds a different light on your stance, and I agree with it all the more. Thanks for the clarification.

 

[Colt]

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]

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]

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]

Say What?

"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]

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]

[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]

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]

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]

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.