So you don’t have a cite. I thought so.
As you already know, I started a new thread for this.
And yet you continued to hijack this thread.
You know, this ‘founding fathers’ thing is really, really spooky.
Since IntelliQ did start a new thread, let’s continue that discussion over there and keep this thread focused on issues related to Gingrich.
OK, here’s one: If Paul represents the libertarian wing of the GOP; and Santorum represents the religious right; and Romney represents the mainstream-business-interest GOP; what does Gingrich represent? The neocons?
Family values, duh.
The non-sentient.
The angry.
I used to amuse my friends in high school by giving my impression of a speech that would get you, if not elected, a huge minority of votes in any election, that required zero knowledge and less skill. It went “Dis fucken city–yaw tax dollahs,” shaking your fist a few times, “It just ain’t right, yaw tax dollahs, dis fucken city” over and over. That’s the angry, resentful, ignorant base Newt’s appealing to–the question is if he can grow that base.
Of course, he’s not appealing to NYC voters so it requires a little tinkering from my formula, more like “This great country, thanks to Obama’s failure, wretched economy, your tax dollars, take our country back, American exceptionalism” blablabla. No need for rhetorical skill, cogent points, compelling arguments. You’ve got about 35%, 40% in strong support on the basis of that vapid jingoistic drivel. Can he build on that?
All it needs is, “city on a hill”
By George, I think he’s got it.
He’s a hybrid of course, the right hates him, so does the left. The more I hear previously unknown (to me) establishment types pop out of the woodwork complaining he was mean to them, the more I smile and want him to do well. He seems barely right of center to me, maybe that’s just because he’s attached to the Republican party and it skews my perception, all things considered maybe his policies point more towards him being a centrist no matter how much he rails against moderates. Personally, I find his view on immigration to be as perfect as a solution as we could get, imho.
I do like Newt, or at least I like hearing his answers. I rarely ever find myself disagreeing with him except in tone. Not a fan of Santorum whatsoever, but he had a point when he said (paraphrase) “you never know when Newt’s gonna pop and say something strange”.
You might have been joking but I think this is very very on point.
The Republicans are mad and they want a candidate that will give voice to their righteous indignation. Newt is taking on the populist firebrand persona and people like it. He is well spoken, he can talk about any number of policies like my neighbor can talk about the the quarterback situation with the Washington Redskins. He has a rebuttal to EVERY argument and is not likely to be caught flatfooted by Romney OR Obama. Even being a prick helps Newt, he can make the tough choices (that Republicasn seem to be convinced will not really hurt them, only lazy black people).
Gingrich IS the most intelligent of the current slate of GOP candidates.
That is unquestionable.
But, is that enough to run the country?
Well… not run the country (we all know that is done by the lizard-men and the Illuminati).
But, to be POTUS?
It would be quite interesting to have two intellectuals run against each other.
Remember, the geeks will inherit the Earth.
It is so written.
I think the best stance to take with Gingrich is to praise him for his imaginative, visionary intellect. “The former Speaker [which is what I’d keep calling him, to stress “former” and remind people both that he’s a has-been and that he got thrown out of the only position of responsibility he’s ever held by his own people] is a generator of ideas, some very good and some downright terrible. As a President, with the power to implement his ideas, that’s a recipe for disaster, but I would be very glad to have a man like the former Speaker working in my administration, where experienced people in NASA, for example, could consider some of the former Speaker’s very interesting ideas and to decide which ones we could act on. He’s a thinker, no doubt, but some of his ideas are very dangerous.” Like that.
On the flip side, Newt says he wouldn’t push ideas that a majority are against. I dont know if his record reflects that since most his work was done in the meat-grinder in congress, but he’s stated that one of Obama’s problems (and certain Democrat senators) is they have foisted on the nation ideas which havent been vetted properly and when they are finally looked at (after they become laws) - are unpopular.
I’d like to take his word on it, because to date no one has marched out his past record in contradiction.
Well, he did begin and lead the impeachment proceedings against Bill Clinton, even knowing that they were unpopular.
He criticized Paul Ryan’s Medicare plan last year - a plan that hardline conservatives love and everyone else hates - and then had to apologize within 24 hours. The incident almost sunk his campaign and it doesn’t say much for his commitment to opposing unpopular ideas.
Im not sure perjury and obstruction of justice are subject to whim. Clinton did actually do those things.