Redstate

I agree Pejman that were Newt to run, it would truly be a race about ideas rather than ideology. In fact I mused a few months ago on what a treat it would be should Al Gore and Newt run in 08. Revenge of the nerds, indeed :)

Newt will force the current cast of characters to take a stance on issues we desperately care about.  Without him, the MSM will shape the election around the last 8 years.  

Now is the time for a renewal of Newt's vision.  Who better to recast that movement, than the man who started it in the first place?  Romney is my second place right now.  He seems best fit to communicate a solid message, should Newt's past take him out of the race.

I would love to see Newt in some high-level advisory role in a "Romney Administration" or an "Allen Administration."  Perhaps Chief of Staff?  Whether he's President or not, doesn't really matter to me.  But, somehow, he's got to be in the game, helping to shape the policies of the GOP.  He's got to be in the thick of things, when Bush is out.  

Newt would focus on what is best for the country - not what is best for those in power.

He is my choice for president.

As Speaker of the House, Newt Gingrich was gaffe-prone, and by "gaffe" I mean in the Washington sense--accidentally telling the truth in front of a mainstream reporter (or some other type of partisan opportunist.)

Representative Gingrich was a superb thinker and political philosopher.  As a leader (or as an  actor, or as a doer), Gingrich reached his level of incompetence as Speaker of the House.

With all due respect to the gentleman, we do not want Mr. Gingrich as President.  

What exactly did he do as a politician that would preclude him from being president?  (as in not the extra-marital affair, I mean politically).

Do you mean the impeachment?  If not that, then what?

the Left's worst nightmare, a genuinely intellectual conservative who defies many of their neat little boxes e.g., no Southern segregation background, not an activist Christian.

To make it worse, he's a superb writer and speaker, at least for reasonably intellectual audiences.

All that said, his arguments are complex and nuanced and he is often too professorial for the sound bites that one used to get the "every four years" voter.  He also is, if anything, a bigger lightening rod than HRC.  He is, after all, the one that took their Congress and ultimately their country away from them.  They'll move Heaven, Earth, and even Hell to try to beat him.

First of all, if a man's family can't trust him and he can't keep that vow to God, why should we?

Second point, Newt started the GOP on the road to compromise. It was under Newt's speakership that certain Congressmen such as Bud Shuster started spending like drunken sailors. Newt depended entirely on Impeachment to deliver for the GOP in 1998 despite the party's big-spending ways. It didn't and the GOP paid a price for it.

Newt's presence in the race will be a major advantage for the Republicans. He will force the field to not only deal with the issues, but he will make them explain their positions in a way that can be understood by ordinary Americans.

Newt has the ability to do just that. If the field of other candidates can't do it, then Newt will win the nomination. If Newt doesn't win the nomination, the one who does will be well practiced in explaining their ideas after sharping their skills against Newt. Either way it is a win win.

I also think that when guys like McCain (or insert other moderate Republican of choice) start debating Newt, they will make themselves look really silly and stupid once they go against Newt. I say that from a perspective where Newt being the conservative who knows what he believes and why, and being a college professor who can make it understandable, debating against a Senate Republican who justifies a policy position based upon what? . Newt will make short work of them (insert moderate Republican of choice) because of those policy position changes as of late, and I can see Newt backing them into an intellecual corner to get them justify it.

Can you picture the immigration amnesty portion of the debate? McCain and Newt? That will be amazing to watch.

I am not decided if Newt should be president, though it is a tantalizing prospect. I'll have to think on that one a bit first, but Newt should definetly run. If nothing more than the policy debate he will force the others to participate in. That is what I want to see!

"his arguments are complex and nuanced and he is often too professorial for the sound bites that one used to get the "every four years" voter."  

I've heard Newt speak on the radio talk shows and seen clips of him teaching on CSPAN and you can clearly hear/see Newt's passion for our country; his understanding of our republic, its history, and ideas to move it forward. However, the ever shortening attention span of the voter requires a candidate who can deliver a strong message/vision for our country in as few words as possible (sad in some ways as that may be).  And I think that perhaps there are others out there who would be more successful at doing so than Newt.

That said, I do agree with others above that he needs to be very much involved in policy, strategy, etc., post-Bush.  Perhaps RNC chair??

an aside..had Newt lived at a different time (say anywhere from the beginning of the republic to the early 1900s), I think he would have had a better chance at the presidency than today....

Newt sucked up to both Bill and Hillary and shows weakness when challenged. He ain't the right guy. A useful advocate, but not someone you want in the foxhole as anyone who has been in a battle will tell you.

will be drowned in 15 second soundbites.  Great wonk, maybe great organizer, in today's world; bad candidate.

He is/was perceived as "mean". A lot like Delay in that respect. He would start any race with high "unfavorable" ratings. A bit like the Republican Hillary.  

Newt is the candidate for people that want a thoughtful, intellectual, policy-man as their President and don't particularly mind if their President is viewed as an amoral * (re: the circumstances of his divorce).

Re: First of all, if a man's family can't trust him and he can't keep that vow to God, why should we?

History is full of men who were scoundrels in private life but brilliant and effective statesmen in public.

The story may be apocryphal, but when the Temperance folks complained about Grant's drinking problem Lincoln is supposed to have told them "Find out what whiskey he drinks, I'll send a case to all my generals."

a decent Republican candidate would consider Newt Gingrich the man.  He wouldn't win because people don't take him seriously.  

we've just eliminated about half the country, though his was worse than most.

Fifty percent of all marriages end in divorce, the other fifty percent in death; you pick it.

but in practice the GOP sets fairly high standards for its leaders.

Democrats don't resign even when caught with money in the freezer. Ours resign if it comes out that they had an affair. On balance, I'd rather be us.

That actually produced balanced budgets ??

and most people I know who deal with Republican policy, programs, and electoral politics do as well.  I'm on record in other posts about my reservations about him as a candidate, but I have none about him on program and policy.

Anyone who took Hastert's side in the Jefferson dust-up as vociferously as Newt did has both spent too much time in Washington and also lost their mind.

A Newt candidacy is DOA.

Those that support him already take him seriously.  The rest of the conservatives laugh at him.  And so do the democrats.  That doesn't bode well for him winning a Presidential election.  In order to win, he'd have to win over the rest of us RED and then some of the blue.  I don't see it happening.

Newt through the debates is one of the best things that can happen for the GOP in '08, although I agree he was not and would not be an effective leader in power. What we need in '08 is the absolute proven executive leader with public experience and someone who can keep 60+% of the country rock solid with him while he takes on the MSM and the rest of the Democrat Party.

Only two candidates come to mind, Giuliani and an unnamed military general. See the recent Gallup results for public confidence by institution and you'll see the military is still the run away trusted institution in the country (Clark failed because he was a flake and came across for what he was, the opportunist careerist general that was Clinton's boy).

I don't agree with Giuliani on everything but I think he can get the big things right; limit spending, cut taxes, clean house in the Federal government, win the GWOT and fight the Democrats every step of the way. I just don't know where he would be on judges. I know he's socially liberal, but I like to believe that's a libertarian streak that respects the Constitution and the separation of powers.

There aren't many hero faces with Gulf War II the way there was with Gulf War I, Powell (who couldn't do as President what needs to be done) and Schwarzkopf. Franks is the only one and he can do what needs to be done as President. Franks gets it with the Constitution and what's at stake in all of this. He's a plain spoken self made man people will always respect.

I really believe this vacuum that is being created between the more lefty every day Democrat Party and an inept GOP is going to be filled by someone without any past political baggage. I don't think the country wants Hillary or McCain, although they poll the best out of name recognition. I believe we will hold the House and Senate in `06 as the better option, but a demand for new leadership and a new direction will shape '08 while the Democrats are going over a loony-toons cliff from getting nowhere in `06. They'll go with the "we didn't get the message out and were too moderate" strategy like never before.

I've always thought the first well know general to run as a Republican would take it in a walk, and thank God Powell never took what was his for the taking. I think you mix that with an electorate trusting the military by far and away above all else with not wanting any of the current political mugs on the scene in the Oval Office and Franks or one of the lesser known names can walk away with it. If there is God forbid another terrorist attack between now and then it really becomes a potent mix.

A modern day Grant or Ike as Commander in Chief with a wave of OEF/OIF war vet Republican freshman Congressman to propel Mike Pence into the Speaker position would be the best thing that could happen for the country. It may be what's needed to save the country on the political battle fields at home and the military battle fields abroad.

Newt aside, this 50% of all marriages end in divorce is a bit of myth actually.  The problem with the 50% statistic is that the people who stay married often get removed from the pool, whereas the people who get divorced get divorced often more than once.  Medved ripped that to shreds some time ago if i remember correctly.  I think the actual % is 25-30.

family, but here were the statistics then (amazing how that junk stays with you after the test, but you can't remember where your panty hose are):

40% of first marriages end in divorce.

50% of second marriages

increases dramatically thereafter.

people would support him?  Seems to me, enough people HATE Hillary that they would gladly line up behind the one man that drove them insane during the 90's.

. . . and "compassionate conservatism" wasn't mentioned a single time. Hallelujah!

The knock against George W. Bush has always been that he's a terrible communicator.  But now, when confronted with the greatest speaking politician in America, we say that Newt Gingrich is too good of a speaker to become President.

I don't buy it.  Newt is the ideal candidate for President, and its in that ability to convince and communicate, with the former being far more important.

Rudy didn't keep his vow to God either.

As far as I can see, the other candidates on the list would be even MORE likely to pander and compromise.  

Plus, I don't think Newt is a panderer.  That's precisely why he's getting so much grass roots attention right now...he's the only one who doesn't.

...I'd take Newt over a RINO any day.  He's probably learned quite a bit in retrospect from his time as Speaker, hindsight being what it is.  I'm willing to give him credit for having gleaned some wisdom from those years, and will keep an open mind until such time as he actively starts campaigning and presenting his ideas for how he would govern as President.

Presidents, after all, get prime pick of the best minds this country has to offer as advisors, unlike Speakers who have a limited intellectual resource pool from which to choose in the realm of confidential advisors.

since he is certainly as amoral as Newt.

I remember when Newt became speaker, I, like most conservatives, were excited about the idea of reversing the socialist trends of the previous forty years.

But I was quickly frustrated by the lack of a conservative agenda being forwarded, the same as I am now with our republican congress and senate.  

I agree with one of the previous post that Newt was great at challenging the democrats when they were in power, but when he had the chance, there was really no conservative agenda after the contract with America period ended.

For instance, no effort was made to end the dept. of education, end welfare programs, get rid of the progressive income tax system, end tariff's which benefit corporations, and on and on.

I found that when Newt was speaker, it was the same as now.  It seems the rinos make every attempt to avoid pushing any conservative agenda because they want the libs to like them, and they don't want to take a principled stand on any issue.  To me, that is the definition of conservative compassion.  It's doing the same thing that liberals would do, but only in moderation, and a little slower.

But liberals and compromising rinos eventually get to the same result.   The timing is just different.

I hope that in my lifetime, we will be governed by a truly conservative president, house, senate, and supreme court that has the political will to put this country back to where it was intended by our founding fathers.  But at the present time, it seems that is just a dream.

And to sum all of this up, Newt in my opinion, would, if president, be on a more intelligent, better communicative, version of what we have now.

conservatives who laugh at him. Many think he has image problems which would make it hard for him to get elected, but I don't know anyone who thinks he is not a serious figure. That goes for the Democrats I know also; they may detest him, but thats because they respect him as an opponent.

Why do you think some people laugh at him?

Rudy outpolls Newt by over 20 pts.  We can argue who is the better candidate ideologically but what it all boils down to is who can win the election.  The ideologically best candidate might not be able to win, so it would be a waste of time to run that candidate. At some point you have to talk pragmatics.

Yes, different candidates across the spectrum of Republican political thought are very useful in that they add to the overall discussion and help to add planks to a uniting platform but when all is said and done, you put the horse who has the best chance of winning into the race.  And that horse might not be the one with the best political pedigree.

I just think its interesting that the further "left" a candidate is, the less moralilty is a factor in peoples judgment of him.

Rudy was the best mayor of NY ever, but I doubt he gets the nod from the GOP. The primary voters won't go for him, once they get more of the back story. For one thing, are RedState and the GOP going to back a pro-choice candidate? Only if the current SC overturns Roe, is my guess.

for a pro-choice candidate.  I won't vote for Condi though I think she'd be amazing simply because she has some pro-choice leanings.

a pro-choice President can do by himself on that specific issue.  It would take a pro-choice congress too.  I don't see such a thing happening any time soon.

I think he's a joke for a Presidential nominee.  He's made too many blase statements in the past that are going to be picked up and jerked around faster than my dog with a pigskin ear.  His personal life will bite him in the butt and he hasn't made many conservative friends.  His support is going to be low even with his own party, let alone with the blue side.  It's just not viable.

A big part of what got Bush elected was his promises on what sort of judges he would appoint. Apart from the disturbing Miers hiccup he has delivered on that promise.

I can't see the NRA backing Rudy either, Whatever the polls say right now I think he has an uphill struggle to win the primary. I think his strong showing is due to no other big names being out there. Except McCain, who seems determined to scuttle his own chances.

Would have a better chance at the convention if so many states weren't "winner take all" with delegates in the primaries.  The states that divide delegates according to popular vote have the right idea.  If all the states did that, even a candidate that lost by 20 points would come to the convention with some leverage to influence the platform in exchange for their delegates.  If all states are winner take all, then you end up with only a couple of candidates coming to the convention with enough delegates to mean anything.

And, in fact, you could end up with a candidate who was not the most popular in actual primary votes coming to the convention with the most delegates.  Winner take all sucks for delegates.

With more states going winner-take-all, a candidate that doesn't outright win a state gets nothing to take to the convention at all, they completely waste their time going exept to maybe give a speech or something.  Makes the convention more of a coronation.

Quite frankly, that's not really fair.  I mean we all violate God's law.  Which particular sin prevents a man from serving as president?

I get what he's saying. Take God out of the equation - there's no one to whom greater loyalty is owed than one's spouse. For Newt to betray that loyalty twice, once in the context of an extramarital affair, does not bode well for his ability to display loyalty and honesty toward people he's never met.

I'm not saying it should be an automatic disqualifier, but it is enough reason to make you take a step back.

The Jefferson brou-ha-ha put the nail in Newt's coffin for me.

In his 21st Century Contract for America, which will most likely be a centerpiece for his 2008 campaign.

I'd suggest visiting to find out more www.draftnewt.org

Hollywood then it would probably be close to 50%.  It seems everyone in Hollywood get divorced 3 or 4 times, some like Liz taylor up that a bit.

Anyone interestedin Newt and his candidacy might be interested in this web site: http://www.draftnewt.org that I set up.

is somebodyu who is on the ball...i mean jeeze you look at Iraq and Katrina and i think part of the problem that caused this is all this loyalty "inbreeding" that occurs in the Bush Admin...they are too too afraid of people criticizing them and like group think WAY too much...There's a great book called GROUP THINK that dissects the Johnson Presidency and shows how it failed because no outside views were found...just a bunch of Yes Men...i think Newt's ability to challenge the status quo helps him and seperates himself from a clearly unpopular President, McCain comes close to being able to do that, but I think his honeymoon is over with America and the media.

Newt likes the sound of his own voice. He is his own worst enemy.

If he becomes President government will be deadlocked because his vanity will have relying on know one. Every decision will be his, including who takes out the trash and at what time.

Then you could have Newt as your VP candidate blast whoever the Dems run out there in any sort of VP debate.

I always thought Newt's talents and vision suited him better to an executive leadership role than to the Speaker's Chair, which is always and inevitably about compromise, and cobbling together majorities for the best legislation you can get.

In an executive role, Newt would shine more than he did as Speaker.  But, I fear his baggage is too great for him to carry either the primaries or the general election.  He had his chance.  When he left the House he talked about possibly running for Governor of Georgia.  Georgia was a state which had never elected a Republican governor - the last GOPer in the role had been appointed by Grant - but was normally Republican at Federal level.  The state was on the cusp.  For some reason, Newt did not pursue the option.  Perhaps he thought Barnes was unbeatable in 2002.  If so, it was a phenomenal miscalculation.  Six years as governor of a substantial state on top of his years as Speaker would have been a formidable résumé.  But Newt blew it.  And, I suspect, his chance of the presidency.

Frankly, much of what annoyed the GOP about Newt when he was Speaker (and it was a lot more than just the Impeachment issue...) is what I actually liked and admired about the man.  IMHO, he did a fairly good job of reigning in the "new" republicans from their excesses back then, and without his leadership they've effectively run rampant, which is why I've soured so much on our party in the time since.

Newt might not be my first choice (I'm still more looking at Giuliani or McCain, although McCain has lost brownie points with me over the last year or so...), but I wouldn't be at all disappointed if he won the primary -- I'd happily vote for him in the general election, unlike certain others...

That said, he'd have a huge uphill battle to win the general election.  I'm not sure he could do it without a fairly massive shift in perception amongst the moderate Democrats and the Independants.  (You wouldn't believe the negative reactions I get, from otherwise fairly open minded people, when I wear my "Gettysburg" T-shirt, just because Newt's name is on it...)

Some of our greatest presidents were adulterers:  Jefferson, FDR (I know, I know, but at least we won WWII), Kennedy, Wilson, Clinton (lol, these are all Democrats!!!!!!!).

Nevermind, I was honestly going to list presidents I knew had been unfaithful, and then I realized what names I was typing.  

If you want to kick Newt out of the race for unfaithfulness, I guess I can't complain.

Many of us for 8 years were saying that character counts in the Presidency, and plenty of us actually meant it.

Clinton's personal failings hampered his ability to be President, because they put inappropriate pressures on the man while he had a job to do.

We don't need another President so quickly who might have the same problems.

away is going to be perceived as "mean."  And he was just plain obstructionist to the Ds while he remained in the minority.  I think a lot of what we're struggling with today is that so much of the leadership, tactics, and positions were formed in opposition that the Rs don't have much of an idea how to act in the majority.

This is compounded by the fact that the Rs have now swept the South, but the Southern Republicans came up as Democrat machine politicians and their political methods, if not their ideology, are Southern Democrat; spend money to reward your friends and punish your enemies.  Southerners are social conservatives but Southern politicians have never been spending conservatives within the constraints of the economic system that exists in The South.  The South has always been willing to just tax the h**l out of the little people with sales taxes and user fees and spend that money profligately.  Because it is so oligarchal, especially in the rural areas, they can't tax big landowners or big incomes which has made it become the haven for big companies forming or fleeing the high tax north.

I still own some property in Georgia and the place just drives me crazy with taxes and, and especially, fees; they'd tax the air you breathe if they could figure out how to meter it.