Newt is back. Recently, former House Speaker Newt Gingrich gave a speech at the Brookings Institution. Mr. Gingrich stated that, if there remained a “vacuum” in the Republican field of candidates seeking the 2008 presidential nomination, he would throw his hat in the ring.
[…]
A recent Gallup poll placed Mr. Gingrich third in a field of likely GOP presidential candidates. Only Sen. John McCain of Arizona and former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani fared better. Newt’s appeal is especially strong among conservative activists—many of whom consider Mr. McCain and Mr. Giuliani to be too moderate.
If Newt is smart, innovative and articulate why should conservatives not support him in ’08? The answer is the same as to why Bill Clinton did not deserve our support in the 1990s: lack of moral character.
Mr. Gingrich is the conservative version of Mr. Clinton—a point first made by Bob Tyrrell, editor-in-chief of The American Spectator. Both rose to power and national prominence at nearly the same time. Both have come to symbolize the hedonism, triviality and phony prosperity of the roaring 1990s. Both are spoiled, self-indulgent and narcissistic baby boomers. Both are policy wonks (except that Mr. Clinton deals in liberal ideas and Mr. Gingrich in conservative ones). Both are men on the make, shameless opportunists obsessed with political power and influence. Both are superficial and hollow leaders, who fold when they encounter fierce opposition. And both are sexual degenerates who have mistreated women.
Conservative version of Clinton? This guy is whacked. Newt is the only republican I would work for to get elected. I wouldn’t vote for a democrat even at gunpoint. My main choice is libertarian.
Newt is the only pol out there with any original ideas at all. He has thought through more plans and philosophical ideas than all the other potential candidates combined.
If you want perfection, elect God. Otherwise, pick a human.
“… the next leader of the free world.”
I can’t help but cringe every time I see that phrase.
I will support who ever the religious right won’t.
#3. Couldnt have put it better myself the Neo-Con religious right is as bad for the Republicans as the Neo-Liberal far left Intellectual North Easterners (Ned Lamont types) are for the Democrats. These two groups are in a power struggle to pull America off center and divide us.
I would vote for the Geico Gecko, before I voted for a guy named Newt! At least the Gecko is cute.
A guy named Newt. Doesn’t that conjure up visions of a little slimy creature who lives near the local watering hole, and hides most of the time?
I can’t say I have ever read an article with so many quotable comments that either side would cozy up to. I can’t see this opinion piece getting much traction with either party since it slams both…
“…lack of moral character.” – descibing both Newt and Clinton
“Both have come to symbolize the hedonism, triviality and phony prosperity of the roaring 1990s.” – can’t be quoted by Dems who claim the 90’s prosperity were due to Clinton or by Republicans who claim the recovery was just around the corner when Bush lost re-election.
“Both are men on the make, shameless opportunists obsessed with political power and influence.” – What politician isn’t? Neither party would want that comment anywhere near their supporters.
And on and on…
Interesting website the article comes from though…
We’re dealing with a public that casts more votes for a televised talent contest than for a national elections. Remember the founding fathers thought only educated and informed people should vote. They just happened to be land owning white males.
In my opinion Newt Gingrich has more moral character than George W. Bush despite his nonsense at the end of the 90’s
I wouldn’t vote for either of them but it isn’t about their moral character. It is about there views on how we as Americans should be living our lives.
If we want moral character don’t elect politicians!
If you want moral character who won’t be controllable like GWB, then look toward John McCain.
I have to ask what Newt has been smoking if he thinks he is more capable than J. McCain.
Newt is a personal hero of mine. He’s right on the issues that count – terrorism, immigration. If he were a social liberal he’d be really great…
How do you know she’s a witch??
I don’t understand why Newt is considered a serious contender. He blew his political wad in ’98.
Oh geeezz… the man with the “contract with america”. He will just continue what Bush is doing. If you want more of the same. Then vote for him. How depressing.
I vote Green party anyway.
Extreme left and extreme right are fighting for the positions but the right in my opinion appears more aware of where the true center of the country is. To me Newt appears as the likely candidate if Hilary gets the Left approval. He is almost as far right as she is left, but is that crucial smidgeon closer to the center than she is. I would prefer race of centrists in 2008 (Giuliani /McCain vs. Richardson/Lieberman for example) but for that to happen one side needs to blink first, hence unlikely.
Count me also as a Newt fan. As someone mentioned above, he has the right idea with regards to the important issues. I first started to pay attention to Newt back when he and the Republicans where able to get Clinton on their side with the welfare reform act of ’96, which has since proved to be a huge success.
I’ve always considered myself a JFK Dem, what some call a Republican today, or maybe a Lieberman Dem? I’m registered as a D but feel that the Dems continue to move more and more to the left away from me. I think I first started to realize the party was out of touch when Al Gore stated years ago that the Environment was the largest issue facing Americans… Keeping a clean environment is important, bit this issue pales in comparison to immigration, Islamofascism.
I, for one, appreciate Uncle Dave’s balanced approach to posting. He may be slightly leaning against Christianity and Conservatives but it is so very hard to detect exactly. Maybe further postings will reveal his true leanings, all be them ever-so slight and subtle…
#3. Couldnt have put it better myself the Neo-Con religious right is as bad for the Republicans as the Neo-Liberal far left Intellectual North Easterners (Ned Lamont types) are for the Democrats. These two groups are in a power struggle to pull America off center and divide us.
Comment by Chris — 8/22/2006 @ 10:05 am
Gee, the guy beat the incumbent and is now the target of the Republicans like there is no tomorrow. I sure don’t know how many these of these Neo-Liberal far left Intellectual North Easterners there are, but I’m pretty sure that no one died because of anything they did.
Now those that have been supporting the Iraq War and the ill led War on Terrorism do have blood on their hands.
A recent Gallup poll placed Mr. Gingrich third in a field of likely GOP presidential candidates. Only Sen. John McCain of Arizona and former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani fared better.
This just shows how few Republican leaders there are. All three men have skeletons in their closets that the religious right won’t support. After the Republicans lose that support, their base is very fragile indeed.
I still think the Republican party leadership will back Bill Frist. McCain has gone against the party too many times to have any internal support.
And that site sucks.
I dread the thought of a McCain candidacy, since he is by far would do the best at drawing the center towards the GOP. I can hope for Dr. Frist, whose long-distance diagnosis of Terry Schiavo earned him some friends in the RR, which he promptly flushed by flip-flopping over to the reasonable side of the stem-cell debate.
But Newt “orphanages” Gingrich is really the Democrats’ dream GOP candidate. There’s more footage on him saying more interesting things than any of the others, I imagine.
Plus, he is just as ugly as sin.
Bunk! It would take a moonbat from a white supremacist publication such as Insight to believe such nonsense. Those folks also think that the Confederacy will be making a comeback. Truth of the matter is, Bill Clinton is a centrist and a statesman. Newt Gingrich is neither. Anyone not high on mint juleps should be able to tell the difference.
As a stanch Republican, and one who reluctantly voted for Bush twice, I could never vote for Frist…. Newt on the other hand…
What I would really like is for Condi to run.
http://www.4condi.com/
“Plus, he is just as ugly as sin.”
Yup, you are a democrat….
for Carlin: “I got better…”
I think Newt as POTUS would be fun only if he got into a budget battle with a Democratically-controlled Congress: so we could see if he would shutdown the government – again – from the other side of the street.
Six blow jobs does not make you a damned degenerate. What piece of work wrote this crap? Paula Jones has since admitted that she was used by the Arkansas Project political ops and then dropped like a trailer park pickup. The stories endlessly circulated by the Arkansas Project were lies, damned lies and.. no statistics I guess.
Newt boy. Banged an intern, served his first wife divorce papers when she was in the hospital for cancer. Married intern. While helping try Clinton in the press for evil, was banging SECOND intern while married to intern he had cheated with while married to cancerous first wife. Divorced first intern. Dunno if he married second one.
Clinton relates a story of confronting Newty boy in the White House about his hypocrisy.
Newt’s response: “So?”
23. Hey, if you think that being a hideous gargoyle helps Newt’s chances for the WH, go on believing that. I know that Republicans look down upon the “reality based.”
28. Actually, that response increases my respect for Newt a tad – not many politicians can shrug at their hypocracy.
To paraphrase Cpt. Willard from ‘Apocalypse Now’ – Calling politicians hypocrites is like handing out speeding tickets at the Indy 500.