Gingrich Thinks No Candidate a Match For the Clinton Machine

Washington Post ^ | Sep 14, 2007 | Dan Balz

[indcons]

Newt Gingrich, who must wake up each day spewing ideas and dispensing advice, offered a gloomy prognosis today of his party's chances of winning the White House in 2008 and his own prospects of running.

"I believe for any Republican to win in 2008, they have to have a clean break and offer a dramatic, bold change," he said. "If we nominate somebody who has not done that...they're very, very unlikely to win it."

Republicans must break with President Bush and separate themselves from the current state of the political system, he said, and so far none of the current candidates has met that test. But he also made clear that there is now almost no likelihood that he will become a candidate himself, having too little money, too much baggage and too much impatience for a successful campaign.

Gingrich, like many Republicans, believes Hillary Clinton will be the Democratic nominee, and he spoke with some awe of the Clinton machine after remarking on the fact that, on the same day, Bill Clinton was on Oprah and Hillary Clinton was on the Ellen DeGeneres show. "As a professional, I am very, very impressed," he said.

Clinton can be defeated, he said, but only by the kind of campaign that none of the potential nominees is yet running. "None of the Republicans have figured out how to get a routine, repetitive explanation of the future that breaks out of the current situation and that's their primary challenge," he said. "Whoever does that will both, I think, win the nomination and have a realistic chance of defeating Sen. Clinton."

[aroostook war]

Part of me wants to tell Newt to shut the F up. But part of me fears he is right.

He’s right.

[Paperdoll]

:)

[Paperdoll]

>i hate to tell you this upsdriver, because I like Duncan Hunter but he has the charisma of a Bassett Hound that just swallowed 10 mg. of valium.
I even have a hard time listening to him. I can’t put the finger on it but, he is just so UNinspiring.<

I can’t believe it! You just described Fred Dalton Thompson to an absolute tee! :)

[iowamark]

“What Republicans need is an American version of French President Nicholas Sarkozy, who boldly broke with his party’s leader, then-President Jacques Chirac, on the way to victory earlier this year. “

How very true!

[Proud2BAmerican]

I'm not sure that's an accurate estimation. On the issue of abortion, for example, I believe I recall reading that estimates of support/opposition to abortion depend on who's doing the polling --- pro-life groups cite majority opposition to abortion; other groups cite majority support of pro-choice.

Let's say it's 50/50 (personally, I think there's a silent majority that oppose abortion) -- well, then if you put up a candidate who's unapologetically pro-life, as well as other qualities that put him solidly in the conservative camp, you'd find the 'base' is going to flock to the polls to pull the levers.

[Proud2BAmerican]

I should have clarified my comment about big-business, to mean "big business that has no allegiance to our country."

I was speaking more of multi-national corporations, strengthened by initiatives such as NAFTA, that enjoy all the benefits of commerce in America at the direct expense of Americans.

As for your high regard for Bush --- I will just say that I respectfully disagree.

[denydenydeny]

The proper term here is solopcism. The belief that your own experience is the sum total of all experience.

[danmar]

Republicans must break with President Bush and separate themselves from the current state of the political system, he said, and so far none of the current candidates has met that test. But he also made clear that there is now almost no likelihood that he will become a candidate himself, having too little money, too much baggage and too much impatience for a successful campaign.

Ol'Newt needs a chill pill and a dose of reality check! This is not 1994?...he sounds like a king maker wannabe...ummm, well, I have my doubts!

[no dems]

You could very well be correct. I’ve had very few chances to evaluate Fred; he’s not been in any of the debates and has just recently come on the scene.

[presently no screen name]

First - I DIDN'T say he was! You gotta read - I said it's good he didn't decide to run.

Second - What if it's true? For a comment like that, who needs you either w/such a defeatist attitude. Crumble, cave-in, act small but not to worry, the adults are focused and determined - we will carry the day for you.

[jwalsh07]

Newt is a slightly chubbier Bill Clinton which somehow translated into Newt being the submissive one in their relationship. You can have him.

[Finny]

Mom — is that you?? ;^) Maybe you’re right.Though I still think Gingrich screwed the pooch.

[jwalsh07]

Thank you both.

[jwalsh07]

Like I said, break where?

If you mean a break on the borders and spending, then their are candidates like Duncan Hunter and Fred Thompson who have already done that. If you mean break on killing islamonuts in Iraq, social issues and taxes then you are as loopy as Newt.

[Finny]

Good post. You're right. It also amazes me the number of people who think illegal immigration is the biggest threat facing this country and that a FENCE is going to do anything to solve it! The illegal immigration problem is a result of big government, business-hostile Liberal Democrat policies (too often supported by big government Republicans) of too much wage/free market regulation and of freebie entitlements. Get rid of those and enforce immigration laws on the books, and you make the illegal immigration problem shrink to a minor problem. But without those steps, the biggest, nastiest fence in the world, the harshest anti-amnesty approach on the planet, will only change the problem, not fix it. There's only one way to fix it, and that's with conservative free market small government principles because the illegal immigration problem is a function of the economy.

Dubya disappointed me many times, but if I had the 2000 and 2004 elections to do over again, I'd vote for him again with enthusiasm. He's done a heck of a lot more good than bad.

[Finny]

Are you what they might call "the founder of the feast"? (RE your screen name!!)

Nearly half of Americans polled (many times) have consistently said that they won't vote for her under any circumstances. How does she win with one of the largest negative ratings for a non-incumbent in recent history?

Sadly, she could win two ways: if it's a two-way race, voter fraud. If it's a three-way race and a spoiler shows up to siphon votes from Republicans disgusted with a too-liberal candidate like Giuliani, she wins.

But take comfort. IF she wins either way, within months she'll be the most polarizing and unpopular American president in history. Democrat constituents will pressure their reps in congress to distance themselves from her, and the damage she does to the Democrat party will make the damage Nixon did to the Republicans via Watergate laughable in comparison.

Anyway, that's how I see it. Sometimes -- a lot of times, in fact -- curses really do turn out to be blessings in disguise.

[Fred]

Newt jockeying for a cabinet slot no matter who wins... What a lick

[Dead Dog]

Newt jumped the shark with his Green Republican bit a year ago. Now he’s makin’ sweet love to it.

[spunkets]

Eye of newt.

Where's the meat?

[CurlyBill]

You are absolutely right about voter fraud. I think this occurs in the big cities far more than many realize. I think it’s funny that some Dems have already stated that they might be in trouble with her as the nominee due to the fact that she is probably the most ploarizing candidate in modern history.