Skip to comments.Gingrich For President '08: Is His Baggage Too Heavy?
Posted on 04/30/2005 5:42:58 AM PDT by Nasty McPhilthy
It appears to this writer that former Speaker of the House of Representatives Newt Gingrich is preparing to run for the Presidency in '08.
The big question: is his personal baggage too much to over-come for him to succeed? I'm talking about the alleged marital infidelity, the alleged hospital break-up with his first wife, his second divorce and third marriage after an extended affair while still married-quite a load to explain to a conservative public; quite a load to explain to people who rated moral issues as the biggest single deciding factor in the last election. There's also the matter of the $300,000 penalty assessed against him for alleged questionable activities involving GOPAC and his book deal. I recall that entire circus, and spent a fair amount of time listening to the testimony before the Ethics Committee on C-Span. I personally never was convinced that GOPAC was anything more than what Gingrich represented it to be, nor that any real wrong doing occurred.
Once again it was the appearance of wrong doing (a favorite tool of the Democrats-appearance is sufficient grounds to convict) more than anything else that caused his demise and early retirement from the House Speakership. Certainly there was some questionable decision making (the exact phrase was "intentional or reckless" disregard for house rules), but no crimes were committed, and the ethics committee's fines were disproportionate for the transgressions. The combination of a few shaky Republicans and the vindictive Democrats, still smarting from Gingrich's successful pursuit of Democrat Speaker Jim Wright, as well as their outrage at the Republicans having the nerve to wrest control of the House from them (didnt we know that it was their divine right?) proved to be enough to get him reprimanded and fined. Note the term, reprimanded, not as is generally stated by Liberals, censured, which would have been an entirely different and far more serious matter.
As to his personal peccadilloes, I must admit I am uncomfortable with that sort of reckless behavior. It echoes too closely, the behavior of Bill Bubba one Clinton. I do believe that it shows a certain lack of self-control. I also believe that is demonstrates a rather cavalier attitude towards keeping ones word (marriage is a vow, a lifetime commitment). I realize that this kind of attitude may seem antiquated in this society of quickie marriage and quickie divorce, but I still believe in a man keeping his word. Is this issue sufficient to disqualify him from being President? Im not certain, but I dont think so. My revulsion of Bubba was an aggregate of his lascivious behavior and his Liberal agenda. That and the multiplicity of scandals surrounding his administration (White Water, File-gate, Pardon-gate, etc.) conflated to rise to the level of a grotesque mockery of the prestige and honor of the Whitehouse and the Presidency.
The question remains however. Can the Newtster surmount the heat he is sure to receive from his competition? The answer depends entirely upon his ability to bypass the MSM and get his message directly to the voters. Newt has a lot of people out here who think very highly of him. Be that as it may, he is certain to face a very tough primary campaign from Senators Frist, McCain, and Hagel. He is equally assured of being subjected to hate mongering at least equal to that we witnessed against President Bush during the last election from the Left. Creepy-crawlies like George Soros and Michael Moore (ugh! I can hardly stand to type his name), in concert with their hatchet groups like MoveON.org, Communist Cause, and People for the Highly Questionable Elitist Way will certainly mount a full court press. We can expect a rousing shout of outrage from DNC commissar Howard Dean and his hit-team (AARRGGHH!).
The reason I am asking these questions, is that I believe Newt Gingrich to be the single most qualified candidate for the office of the President in recent memory. He ought to be ideal for the Liberals who showered President Bush with unjust labels like "Dumbya" and "stupid." There could be no such assault on Mr. Gingrich's intellect. His knowledge of how the system works, or is supposed to work, is equal to that of anyone in government. His familiarity with our historical provenance as a professor of American History and Government gives him a perspective unique among the likely candidates. And since we already know that immoral behavior is no big deal for the Left, Gingrichs morally questionable behavior should actually be a big plus for them. Of course Liberals won't embrace him because Newt believes in limited government, not the Socialist Paternalistic State of the early 20th century of which they dream.
Newt expresses a vision of the future possibilities for this nation that none have come close to matching. Having read his latest book, Winning the Future, I believe it to be a rarely seen example of farsighted and far-reaching policy goals designed to take this nation forward into this new century. Newt's thinking is clear, positive, and thoughtful. His ideas are practical, and achievable. Newt offers a vision of hope for the American people and this nation. As a student of government and of the presidency, he definitely has the "guns" to get the job done. He also has one other thing to offer us, a New Contract With America.
So I find myself back at my original question. Can Newt overcome his negative baggage? As a history professor, he has the oratory skills to convey his message in a clear and concise manner. His skill as a debater is great. He is a true conservative, and well liked by other conservatives who, like me can make allowances for his shortcomings. He would be a leader who, unlike any alternative the Democrats are likely to put up-say "Billary" for example-would not let this nation slip into the doldrums of a U.N. led "world government." His belief in the rightness of America, her place in history, and her future, would assure us that the evils espoused by the Left, such as the desirability of judges who believe themselves to be legislators, would not come to pass.
Only time will tell us the answer to this big question. Personally, I hope he can do it. It would be a shame to waste such a mind and talent.
Go Newt! Gingrich for President! Gingrich in 2008! Oh! Just Practicing.
Sounds to me like he's perfectly qualified to be Condi's campaign manager.
Baggage? The Democrats are running Hillary. This is basically a done deal. Talk about baggage!
I could vote for him no problem. It's been ten years. Nobody remembers. The dim shill media never forgets. But, the Pubby majority in congress are belong to him and no one else. The big problem in '08 is the same as '88 and '92 too many Pubby candidates not obeying the 11th commandment. Ripping each other to shreds splitting the party, while St. Hitlery enjoys coronation. Newt is a brilliant campaign strategist, he maybe able to at least win the nomination. Frankly I can't see anyone who can beat Hill , maybe a dark-horse like Sam Brownback. The man exudes integrity.
I've always loved Newt, but, yes, he has too much baggage.
But the MSM has the beast's back and has the long knives out for Newt.
Newt is just as polarizing as Hillary is....
I don't think he could carry a ticket. Maybe as a VP, but we all know he won't go for that...
Newt was my congressman for all of the years he was in the Congress. Newt was a good and faithful soldier that led his party to many victories as a purist in ideas. I remember when Newt promised that he would hold President Clinton to his words and deeds and that he would speak out every time he could.....'holding Clinton's feet to the fires' so to speak for each time Clinton hit the 'moral' skids.
Well, now, guess what happened then.....Newt did NOTHING because it would be a case of the pot calling the kettle black. It turns out that Newt was just another politician getting something on the side.
He lost ALL credibility and he has lost my trust. I personally wouldn't vote for him to be dog catcher.
Ideas (good ones) mean nothing if you don't back them up with deeds......
Newt would be an excellent President. He is a class A American whose country and it's citizens come before politics. If he did run you can be sure the dems would use more 'dirty politics and lies' than they have in the pass.
Gingrich doesn't have possibilities to win.
He'd be a great President. Unfortunately the leftist media will tear him apart.
If he was a Democrat, No. A Republican, Yes
Clinton lowered the bar for baggage pretty low.
I'd vote for the man. Brilliant mind and he has a spine.
About the best you're going to get these days for President
If nothing else, Newt will force the others to address his ideas. That will elevate the whole of the Republican primary and also force the Democrats to face the issues.
Jennifer Wilbanks could probably get the nomination as popular as she is on FR today. 29 threads about her this morning seems a little excessive to me. I posted a thread that was pulled because there was one duplicate. WHY all the threads about JENNIFER WILBANKS?
Well, now, guess what happened then.....Newt did NOTHING because it would be a case of the pot calling the kettle black....
You sound like a jilted lover. You state his promises and then explain why he couldn't keep them. Yet, you still blast him like a woman seeking alimony.
The problem is, the MSM will never let the American people forget the ethics problems. Newt is a Republican not a Democrap!
If Newt ran for president, I'd not only vote for him once, I'd vote for him twice! (I'm an Indian and can do that, you know).
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.