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 (didn’t 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? I’m not certain, but I don’t 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, Gingrich’s 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.
Hillary is starting to attack the people she thinks will be a threat in '08. So far, she has not trashed Newt.
Newt was a teacher...only he couldn't do....his actions belied his deeds....I'm not "jilted" just pissed off he couldn't follow through with what he said he'd do. He will never, ever get a vote from me. I really don't care what you think about him. He can spout off all he wants to about what this should be and what that should be but in the end he's just like all of the rest. And, for him to think he'd even come close to be likely to be elected president just shows everyone what he thinks we are --- a bunch of mind numbed Pubby Robots.
I know it wasn't about the affair....Newt wasn't specific on what he said he'd hold Clinton accountable for. He just said that every time he stepped over the line, he'd be there to call him on it. The reason he couldn't follow through is that , evidently, Newt was one of the 900 FBI files Hillary had. The stupid SOB couldn't keep it in his pants. Newt is all talk and no follow-through and I'll be damned if I ever listen to anything he has to say...let alone vote for him.
I like Newt, but we need a true conservative statesman who can unite the entire Reagan Wing. I believe Indiana Congressman Mike Pence is the perfect candidate for 2008.
http://acuf.org/issues/issue34/050415pol.asp
Most of what he spouts is wishful thinking, IMO.
ALso agree about Mr. Newt being a great choice. He's BRILLIANT!
The 'Rats use so called 'ethics issues' to smear Pubbys because their 'ideas' have been rejected by the voters over and over. They can't govern. They can only obstruct, slander and vilify. This is what they're doing to Bolton, and the Appelate Judge nominees. They did the same to Newt. Yet somehow we do their work for them by cowering and toadying to the press. We'll never win by placating the 'Rats. Hillary will be a formidable challenge and some RINO weasel ain't gonna cut muster. So let's go with this brilliant, scholarly, visionary mover and shaker who is directly responsible for turning the House to the Republicans in 1994. I remember that campaign.It IS brilliant in concept and scope. It was thing of beauty when Rove was still hazing pledges in college.
Speaking of that one guy with white hair that usta be the head of the republican senate but boinked some young hottie and stepped down.
ping
Sorry, ignore #69, I was aiming for Newgeezer.
Yes.
Feel free to ask me again in, say, 10 or 20 years.
I would vote for Newt.
Newt believes in too small a government for the Conservatives. He did push through the balanced budget act which would have slowed down GOP spending too much these past years.
That will elevate the whole of the Republican primary ....
If they have rational discourse and leave the knives at home, Newt will be great as a stalking horse.
You are right on the money.
I still don't know that the Republican Nominee has yet to take a national stage appearance as of this time. With Hillary sharpening her political claws, you know that our side had better come up with an ace candidate that doesn't have a major chink in his/her armor. I don't think you can or should separate the moral issue from Republicans - it's part of what separates US from Them. Newt might be more fitted for a Sec of State?
You might consider writing to Michiu Kaku because your posy makes me think you're in an alternate universe.
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.