Posted on 04/12/2005 11:40:25 AM PDT by areafiftyone
I suggest you listen to what he is talking about or read his new book. I am impressed. Though he is sounding think-tankish and very intellectual he will find out how to market the ideas to the general public.
In a Newt vs Hillary matchup, how much would be made of the infidelity that cost him to resign? Not much.
He knows how to get himself elected in a GOP dominated congressional district. He hasn't even run for state office, and the mighty republican revolution of 96 fizzled quick.
I listen to what he's saying and have read his books, he's very smart but smart doesn't make a person electable. He's a firebrand, highly controversial with some serious skeletons in his closet (that forced him to resign from Congress remember). He can't market his ideas himself, if he ran it would become an election of personal scandal not of ideas.
Oh I'm sure quite a bit could be made of his infidelity, remember according to the media Hillary was cheated on (they carefully ignore what she does when Bill's gone for years at a time), that gives her an excellent position to shoot at Newt over the issue (you can almost hear her now rehearsing her speach about knowing the kind of pain he's caused). It would totally soften her image as a sympathetic character, the big tool the GOP has against Hillary right now is that she's a bitch the last thing they need is a candidate that will allow her to recast as a victim of uncaring men like her opponent.
Despite George W. being the son of George H.W., W was not well-known in the MSM outside of Texas until he ran for President.
IMO, you can blame the MSM for keeping the lid on any prospective Repub candidate.
Maybe FR should start a profile catalog of all of our favorites. Let's get to know them all NOW.
Wrong!!!!!! Evangelical Christians would stay home!!!!!!!!
looks like we might be falling in the trap the Democrats did in 2004, cascading for the candidate that they thought was the most "electable".
me, I'll choose an R over a D solely until they switch sides on the tax issue (highly unlikely).
I read his new book, and it is an excellent read.
That said, not as a politician, not as a legislator, not as a thinker, but as a canidate, he is flawed.
He should work behind the scenes helping another canidate, push his agenda, and getting other conservatives elected.
I doubt his ego would let him, but he he could be the equivalent of Karl Rove, except Rove knows better then to run for office himself (ironic since his role model is Mark Hanna).
The democratic party doesn't care much for personal values thats why they elected Clinton twice as they say that personal life doesnt matter. republicans like to hold their politicians to a higher standard thats why when republicans are accused of hanky panky they resign. Rudy is overrated imho. I mean do we really want to nominate a man whose been married three times, and is currently married to his mistress? Rudy would destroy the party if he was our nominee. As much as i like gingrich's ideas, he isnt exactly the nominee we want to put up for our family values crowd.
Lets not underestimate George Allen in 2008 now. Yea yea i know here comes the anti-senator chorus but lets remember he was a governor and with hillary as the nominee the notion that a senator can't win the white house becomes a MOOT point. The reason we dont like senators is becauase they often compromise and have no executive experience. You cant quite say that about allen, hes been very consistent and was a former governor.
As for newt, lets just leave him as a policy advisor of sorts since hes pretty smart with that, but no way do we want him as a candidate. Although the plus side to having newt on board would be that i know hed push the illegal immigration issue and itd force the other candidates to take it up.
An interesting prospective candidacy, in a so-far weak field.
Newt is a very smart politician, and has to be taken VERY seriously.
I was in the room when he spoke recently at CPAC.
Great speech, and very well-received.
He has tremendous appeal to the nominating electorate of the GOP.
And he knows how to sell the conservative agenda in a winning way to the masses of the American people.
Yeah, waaay too much baggage. Remember the affair with Callista Bisek?
Newtie ping
I am approaching 2008 the same way I did 2000. My original candidate was Dan Quayle (I am from Indiana) and when he dropped out, I didin't know who to back. I watched Road to the White House every week and discovered that I really liked George W. Bush. The most telling thing to me was that he treated everyone with respect and kindness, regardless of who they were. He talked to people the exact same way whether they were 12-year-olds, old ladies, Senators, big bucks donors. I found this very unusual and made me think he was not a phoney. I also liked a lot of his campaign issues, particularly strengthening the military. He ended up getting my vote and my money and volunteer work, something I never had done before.
I will be following the same process this time. I don't have loyalty to any candidate, and I don't really dislike any of them (unless McCain runs...ugh) so I will be trying to decide based on what I learn over the next 2 years.
I don't mean to imply that Pence will automatically get my backing. I simply was telling what I knew of him because he is from my state. Allen may be just as good, but I don't know enough about him yet.
FReegards...MUD
Couldn't disagree more. If the GOP relies on the old playbook of tarring someone as a liberal and such, she'll play voters like a violin.
Who else is out there right now on the GOP side, talking about reforming the medical system in as much detail and with as much passion and eloquence as Newt?
If you don't think you need a nominee who can go toe to toe with Clinton on healthcare issues, think again.
There's been an "eloquence deficiency" in effect on the GOP Presidential candidate level for, wow, at least since Jack Kemp ran in 1988 (the VP version in 96 wasn't the same, IMO).
Being correct on issues isn't enough when the MSM and others are aligned against you; a candidate his or herself needs to speak forcefully, convincingly and intelligently in order to move the ball forward in selling ideas to voters. IMO, when the GOP lacks such leadership, they underperform in terms of what can be accomplished due to inefficient persuasion and communication.
I still have videotapes full of Gingrich speeches from C-SPAN, even before he became Speaker. The man can speak, and he can connect.
Plus, he'll raise a ton of cash the next three years.
Underestimate his appeal to the GOP primary voter at your own peril, folks.
I agree. We couldn't disagree more.
Hmm. Does that make him the Hillary of the Right? Moving to the center, is he?
I wonder if left-wing pundits will start pushing him like right-wing pundits are pushing Hillary.
Wouldn't that be a fine how do you do. Each side pushing someone on the other side that they think they can beat.
What a pair that would make. I think I'd vote third party in that event.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.