Why Gingrich Could Win


#1

From this morning’s Wall Street Journal Why Gingrich Could Winby Dorothy Rabinowitz

I dunno, maybe she’s on to something. I have never supported Gingrich because I figured that with his history and baggage he couldn’t beat Obama, but I’m despairing that any of the candidates can defeat Obama. We have decided to cripple ourselves with vituperation and in-fighting, which has scared off the more worthy potential candidates. Romney is uninspiring, Cain is damaged goods and Perry’s thick as a brick. That leaves Newt.

I gotta hand it to him for sticking to ideas and issues, and speaking up and not down to his audiences. If this is to be an election of ideas, maybe we can at least increase our margins in the House and Senate. I can see Gingrich as being a good top of the ticket for the Congressional races, even if we are fated for another four years of Barry Obama.


#2

Watch out now, you might start agreeing with some of us…

Newt is who I’m currently backing. I’d still prefer Bachmann, but it’s not going to happen.


#3

We no doubt agree on many things, JStang. I wish we all could agree to stop with BOTH the “SoCon” and “RINO” bashing and unite in common cause to defeat the worst President since Jimmy Carter.


#4

JAZZ<<< WORST PRESIDENT OF ALL TIME!!! Rooseveldt may be second, in that HE DID institute the onset of ‘socialist’ programs which we are now discovering just how much damage they have done.
Millard Fillmore was always called the worst and Herbert Hoover secong, maybe James Buchanan third,[ I place these ahead of Jimmy Carter] but these were pretty much do nothing presidents. Rooseveldt was a DOER and as much as he was the great leader through WW2 and did a decent job there, his social programs will forever stink up the potty.


#5

In deciding whom to select as the “worst” POTUS of all time I suppose it would depend upon the variables one were to select in deciding/measuring the selection. But, as to which president was/is the most DANGEROUS we have ever had with respect to placing in jeopardy the long-term survival of the republic, I think there can be little doubt it is Barrack Obama - if for no other reasons than his limp-wristed, internationalist/apologetic, nearly rudderless approach to foreign policy and the catostrophic potential fiscal consequences we are facing as a result of his accelerated “warp-speed” spending/money printing, accumulation of near boundless debt and “boot-on-the-neck” regulatory policies.

You placed your finger on it, NJC - a president like Fillmore - someone who basically sits around marking time, might prove to be a liability - but they are unlikely to blow things up (figuratively, of course). A DOER, on the other hand . . .

And, let’s face it, Obama has been a DOER.


#6

I like Gingrich but his baggage is the one thing that will keep me from voting for him in the primaries. If he was to get the nomination thought I might vote for him.


#7

Do you know what his ACTUAL problem was that got him to leave the congress?
It wasn’t his womanizing, ------------He wrote a book.


#8

I consider Woodrow Wilson the worst President ever without thinking twice about it. No competition for that spot at all, Wilson has the crown.


#9

yeah Wilson was a do very little type. the college professor liberal progressive. what is your problem with him?


#10

Yep.

And I doubt that there’s a human being alive - and even less likely one who is running for president - that doesn’t haul some baggage around with him.


#11

Actually wilson did a lot. Went to war with mexico (not really). Started War Socialism How War Amplified Federal Power in the Twentieth Century: Publications: The Independent Institute Expanded government among other things which he did.


#12

League of Nations, forerunner of the UN.


#13

yea, that scumbag is high up on my list (#4, I think)


#14

Also that. If we consider “bad” as increasing government power wilson would be high on the list perhaps in the top #5?:eusa_think:


#15

Oh, he was a doer.

“Why has Jesus Christ so far not succeeded in inducing the world to follow His teachings in these matters? It is because He taught the idea without devising any practical means of attaining it. That is why I am pursuing a practical scheme to carry out His aims.”-WW

Got us into WW1 for no reason. And instituted a draft for that pointless war. And silenced the people against it with the Sedition Act of 1918.

Which of course allowed him to create the League of Nations.

He pushed for the 16th amendment and got it (income tax)!!!

He pushed for and got the Federal Reserve Act!!!

Of course, he was a fierce regulator and anti-trust progressive

Woodrow Wilson: America’s Worst and First Fascist President « Conservative Colloquium


#16

Wilson was also a Dixiecrat racist. From Reason magazine


#17

Exactly, at least Newt has never tried to defend his shortcomings in Marriage. I have never heard him offer an excuse that would demonize any of his former wives (even though there is plenty of room for this) or try to cloud the issue.

He says that he was wrong and that he has repented for his actions and sought a more obedient relationship with God.

I suppose that could be just creative politics but the “standard textbook” method of addressing such shortcomings is far different and much more benign. I doubt this will cause many to write him off if he continues on his flawless trajectory fueled by substance and competence.


#18

I’m missing something here. The so-cons are a reliable vote on all manner of issues near and dear to conservatism. The RINO’s are, uh, not. The only justification for voting for a RINO can be the achievement of a Republican majority and the tacit assurance that as a member of that majority they will either do little damage or follow the party line more often than not. There’s only one problem with that theory; there’s no historical precedent for it. The RINO’s end up steering the party towards a more moderate position, while the party has little effect on steering the RINO’s towards a more conservative position. And once the spending orgy commences, even more reliable legislators abandon principle. At least, that’s what happened during the Bush years and I see no evidence offering me comfort that it wouldn’t happen again.

Aside from Gingrich’s personal baggage, and voters tend to like their Republicans washed and combed, he has the problem, and the temperament, that he’s been around long enough to have been on both sides of many issues. He has a very active mind, but is not so good at development and implementation of his ideas. Ideas that are as often as not abandoned seemingly overnight for new enthusiasms. While he is quite adept at explaining away these flip-flops, and he’d do very well in debating the current president, the TV commercials highlighting his flip-flops and ethical issues would devastate his campaign. Even there, the flip-flops could have been overcome, absent the ethical questions. And it is those events, and the questions that surround them, that long ago derailed what might have been a natural ascendency to the nation’s highest office.

I believe that he is running for the vice presidency and he could be devastatingly effective in that role, both as a candidate and as a counselor to the eventual Republican nominee for president once in office.


#19

I agree with you on Newts VP prospects…and on his shortcomings for the big desk. The problem with him as a VP to Romney is that he brings little to the TICKET that Romney needs regardless of how valuable he would be in office. Often the TICKET becomes the crucial selection factor. Someone who can bring home a critical voting bloc OR swing state is a more likely choice. Newt could always serve in a cabinet position to accommodate the tickets’ needs. JEB Bush? Rick Santorum? Nicky Haley?
I would be very happy to see Newt as a VP candidate…just reflecting on political calculus! It would be something to see him 1 on 1 vs. Biden!! :smiley:


BTW…I believe what Jazz is referring to is the group here who say they will stay home if their particular type of candidate is not the Party nominee…rather than unite and fight Obama.


#20

Were he to be the VP nominee, I think he’d benefit the ticket from taking the Cheney pledge to not seek the higher office in the future. As far as the Veep candidacy goes, I was thinking specifically of the havoc and devastation he’d rain down on Biden. I agree that he’d not bring any particular states not already in the Republican fold to the effort.

A cabinet position isn’t worth a warm bucket of spit, unless the president’s ear is assured. One Chief of Staff negates any cabinet position. The Veep cannot be excluded from crucial meetings.

Those threatening to sit out the election are either blowing hot air or terminally obtuse. Politics are a lot like life; you make the best choice out of the lot given to you. You don’t have to like your options to acknowledge that they are your only options. It is discouraging to hold your nose; it’s fatal to stop breathing all together. I’d like to own a new Toyota 4wd truck. I own a 14 yr old 2wd Ford truck. I own a truck. Beats walking and is miles ahead of pulling my boat with my bicycle.