Will Newt Gingrich run for POTUS?

[Sage_Rat]

@RTFirefly

2. Gingrich was also a driver of the Clinton impeachment - even after the voters had repudiated the idea. A lot of Americans - and remember that Clinton was loved more by moderates than by lefties - still do a slow burn when they remember that.

I think that if moderates were flamable, they wouldn’t be moderate. That a lead Republican would be trying to kick out the other guy is just politics. If anything, you would have to wonder that Bush hasn’t been having to deal with impeachment hearings every couple of days like Clinton was. Nothing wrong with keeping the president honest.

[RTFirefly]

@Sage Rat

I think that if moderates were flamable, they wouldn’t be moderate.

You’re missing a ‘routinely’ before ‘flamable’ (sic).

That a lead Republican would be trying to kick out the other guy is just politics.

Except that the normal way to do it is via elections. This was only the third serious try at removal via impeachment in the history of the U.S. - that’s hardly ‘just politics.’

If anything, you would have to wonder that Bush hasn’t been having to deal with impeachment hearings every couple of days like Clinton was.

Ummm, because Bush’s party controlled the House for the first six years of Bush’s Presidency?

If it weren’t so close to the end of Bush’s Presidency, and if there weren’t such a backlog of business neglected by the Publicans, the Dems would be under a lot more pressure to impeach. But given the desire not to postpone dealing with problems from the minimum wage to global warming, impeachment has a low priority, even in most of Left Blogistan.

[Jelymag]

1. He might try.

2. Maybe. Ten years ago, probably. But to most of the general public, he’s really been off the radar for a while.

3. Only if the D-party picks someone more hideous.

4. Same as all the rest: big ideas that go nowhere. Maybe worse.

[gonzomax]

http://www.crooksandliars.com/2007/03/04/newt-blames-the-victims-of-katrina/ Newt can not shut up. His off the cuff remarks are often offensive and poor politically. He will trash it all by revealing his crabby self.

[BobLibDem]

1- I don’t think so. I get the impression that he is quite satisfied with his life at present and doesn’t really have the burning desire that you need to make the run.

2- I think he would be. He’s still the darling of a large segment of his party.

3- Probably not. Unless the Dems nominate Charles Manson, the GOP nominee is toast.

4- We’ll never find out. He’d probably be like I thought Dole would have been. Competent and conscientious but not spectacular.

[Elendil_s_Heir]

1. Very unlikely to run. I think he enjoys the limelight and wants to sell books, and enjoys the Cuomoesque “will he or won’t he?” questions, but I really doubt he’ll run.

2. Mmmmmmmmmaybe nominatable, given the dissatisfaction of many GOP stalwarts with the current likely crop of candidates (McCain, Giuliani and Romney each have… issues). But he was, at the end of the day, a failure as Speaker and has some dirty laundry as to his first wife that would look pretty bad to the typical Republican primary voter, once his opponents started to hammer him. I’m not convinced he could do the necessary ginormous fundraising, either.

3. Definitely not electable. Too far to the right, and yesterday’s man. He would beaten if he went up against virtually any mainstream Democrat.

4. I think he would make a marginally better President than the incumbent. He is an idea guy (many of which are harebrained, but that’s what the White House staff is there to contain) and is certainly smarter than Dubya. But he’d be every bit as divisive, and probably doesn’t have the managerial skills a modern President needs to succeed.

[Shodan]

The election is still a year and a half away. Gingrich gains nothing from declaring at this point, given his apparent strategy of out-waiting the “front-runners” and (possibly) slipping in after they all fall away. I doubt if he will run, but he might.

He is nominable, if he does run. Because of this -

Republicans are often heard talking about much they miss ‘Gingrich Republicans’ - the Gingrich revolution in 1994 was all about fiscal responsibility, small government, and intelligent management. Those Republicans wanted to shut down the Department of Education, kill pork barrel spending, cut taxes, and balance the budget. The current Republicans spend all their time yapping about gays, stem cells, and the ten commandments while presiding over huge deficits and huge increases to agencies like the Dept of Education, while pushing through as many earmarks as they possibly can.

So Gingrich has a story to sell - “Republicans - let’s go back to what we were when Reagan was around.” Newt was seen as being the flag-bearer for ‘Reagan Republicans’, and I think there’s still a big yearning for that in the Republican party.

The Contract with America is what got the Republicans into Congress (along with the Clinton sleaze). Newt comes up with another one, spends six months selling it, and (maybe) sails into the White House after Hilary finishes stabbing Obama in the back while smiling.

What kind of President would he be? Think of a conservative LBJ (I hope). Good legislator, good at arm-twisting, able to keep focused on an agenda.

The fact that he makes the Usual Suspects go ballistic is neither surprising nor informative - they will react that way to any Republican who is likely to get the nomination. If Newt can put together an agenda that appeals to Middle America - and, before you get your panties into a twist, that’s what the Contract with America did, and it passed 100%, so hold your water - he has a shot at it. Maybe.

Every Presidental election since 1964 has been won by a conservative Republican, or a Southern Democrat. Congresscritters are 0 for 40 in Presidental bids during the same period. Newt is a conservative Republican, and the Democratic front-runner is a carpet bagger who beat feet away from the South as soon as she possibly could, and is now the junior Senator from a northeastern state.

Do the math.

Regards,
Shodan

[elucidator]

Newt? Newt? **Newt! **

Now, Universe, I know I haven’t been a very good pantheist…

[XT]

I never realized you liked him so much 'luci…

-XT

[BrainGlutton]

@Shodan

The Contract with America is what got the Republicans into Congress (along with the Clinton sleaze).

:rolleyes: Please do not forget that there was nothing sleazy about the Clintons’ involvement with the Whitewater business, and that nothing genuinely sleazy about Bill came to light until long after the 1994 midterms.

@Shodan

If Newt can put together an agenda that appeals to Middle America - and, before you get your panties into a twist, that’s what the Contract with America did, and it passed 100%, so hold your water - he has a shot at it.

100%?

From “The Contract with America”:

On the first day of the 104th Congress, the new Republican majority will immediately pass the following major reforms, aimed at restoring the faith and trust of the American people in their government:

FIRST, require all laws that apply to the rest of the country also apply equally to the Congress;
SECOND, select a major, independent auditing firm to conduct a comprehensive audit of Congress for waste, fraud or abuse;
THIRD, cut the number of House committees, and cut committee staff by one-third;
FOURTH, limit the terms of all committee chairs;
FIFTH, ban the casting of proxy votes in committee;
SIXTH, require committee meetings to be open to the public;
SEVENTH, require a three-fifths majority vote to pass a tax increase;
EIGHTH, guarantee an honest accounting of our Federal Budget by implementing zero base-line budgeting.

How much of that actually was done?

[Captain_Amazing]

@BrainGlutton

How much of that actually was done?

Didn’t they actually do everything on your list?

[BrainGlutton]

@Captain Amazing

Didn’t they actually do everything on your list?

Well, it’s been a while, but I’m fairly certain they don’t need a three-fifths majority for a tax increase, and I’ve never heard of Congress being accountable to a non-governmental auditing firm, and since when does zero-base budgeting play any role in the federal budgeting process?

[Captain_Amazing]

@BrainGlutton

Well, it’s been a while, but I’m fairly certain they don’t need a three-fifths majority for a tax increase, and I’ve never heard of Congress being accountable to a non-governmental auditing firm, and since when does zero-base budgeting play any role in the federal budgeting process?

Well, they don’t need a three-fifths majority for a tax increase now, but I’m pretty sure that was one of the rules of that congress. I also seem to recall an audit being done, but I can’t at this point find evidence that it was.

[Shodan]

@BrainGlutton

How much of that actually was done?

All of it.

The House also provided for an independent audit of the finances of the House itself. This eventually led to a report by Price Waterhouse that found 2,200 instances of double payments for travel expenses, 700 retroactive pay hikes despite a rule against this, and, in general, accounting practices so out-of-date that the auditors could not be sure of the actual numbers they were working with.

Cite.

And

All ten items in the Contract with America were brought to a vote in the U.S. House in the first 100 days as promised by the Contract.

Cite.

Regards,
Shodan

[Shodan]

nothing genuinely sleazy about Bill came to light until long after the 1994 midterms.

Well, let’s see - Travelgate was 1993, Zoe Baird, too. Vince Foster committed suicide (and Hilary’s chief of staff was spotted removing documents from his office) the same year, and Paula Jones filed suit in 1994. Hilary’s miracle trades in cattle futures happened in 1978, but she didn’t release the documents until 1993.

But you are right - the lying under oath, selling pardons for money, and various other slime came later. After Bill got a chance to warm up.

Regards,
Shodan

[Tuckerfan]

Shouldn’t Newt be out hunting giraffes?

[XT]

Not sure…but were I him, I’d be worried if there were any witches about. Eye of Newt, from what I understand, is a much sought after ingredient…

-XT

[BobLibDem]

@Shodan

Every Presidental election since 1964 has been won by a conservative Republican, or a Southern Democrat.

One could argue that Nixon was not a conservative Republican, at least by today’s standards. George Bush (the decent one) wasn’t even all that conservative. True, Republicans have been very skillful at exploiting southern resentment of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. But that factor I believe is waning over time and the south may be more in play than it has in the past.

[Shodan]

@BobLibDem

One could argue that Nixon was not a conservative Republican, at least by today’s standards. George Bush (the decent one) wasn’t even all that conservative.

Both true - Nixon with the wage and price controls, and Bush was not particularly conservative. Good on foreign policy, but otherwise too used to being in the minority.

True, Republicans have been very skillful at exploiting southern resentment of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. But that factor I believe is waning over time and the south may be more in play than it has in the past.

More in play? It seems to have been more or less decisive since 1964, as I (or rather, George Will) mentioned.

Regards,
Shodan

[magellan01]

McCain is toast. Giulliani will be the favorite, but Reps will be holding thier noses. Enter Newt. Great command of the issues, very articulate, untainted by the Iraq war. He’ll be viewed as a breath of frsh air, a return to the purer Reagan conservatism.

If he manages to get the nomination, I will bet money that he beats either Hillary or Obama. I don’t even think it will be close.

I hope he runs. Even if he doesn’t get the nomination, he would be fantastic in the debates. He is smart, knows the issues inside and out, and can present his case very well.