 |
| TSU ME THE MONEY |
Posted on 09/14/2007 6:05:28 PM PDT by 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."
(Excerpt) Read more at blog.washingtonpost.com ...
On the other hand, Democrats, especially the Clintons, play very dirty. Vince Foster is dead, for God's sake, and a cursory glance at the Clintons' past makes it pretty clear that close business associations with them can be hazardous to your health. Therefore:
At some point, Clinton's scandals will be used as ammo by her Democrat opponents.
I'm not so sure about that. I think the Clintons have a lot of dirt and are ruthless in how they enforce blackmail -- i.e., threaten loved ones. They are thugs.
Well, Newt, you did such a great job of bringing into fruition the “Contract with America”.
I wonder when they'll begin with that.
Yet if I had it to do over again, I'd vote for him gladly. History will judge him as a wise and measured president in many ways. He was THE right man for the time.
I have no beef with big business. Businesses big and small in a free market inspire the most moral system of interpersonal commerce imagineable. Free of class envy, that is -- envy is a very bad thing, and even many Republicans are tempted to be misled by it.
Big nanny government is, to me, often inspired by envy and it is the biggest enemy of the (R). Or at least, it should be. When it stops doing that, then either I'm no longer an (R) or the (R) is no longer Republican.
One more time, Newt needs to “SHUT UP”!
Nothing can overcome the power of Hilary’s cleavage.
Get in or shut up.
That's what my mom thinks of it. Me, the whole global warming thing is such a disgusting, fear-mongering, child-scaring exhibit ("Mommy, why are the polar bears drowning? Can't we save them from freezing and drowning in the cold water, Mommy?" For shame! Honestly!!) ... anyway, to even begin to validate it would be a massive betrayal of all that is honorable. I know that sounds pretty melodramatic, but ... they're victimizing little kids with this crap and making them frightened and hopless and miserable, when the truth is that life is incredibly vibrant and strong and this old earth has seen a lot worse than us, to deny kids that truth and scare them instead to make a political point! That's wrong and must be condemned.
You said it.
Hey Newt: Shaddup!
I think there is a strategy behind Newt praising Hillary. He has said before that he is “salivating” at the thought of nine, 90 minute debates with Hillary. I think he is intentionally propping her up as an extremely talented, formidible opponent, so when they meet for real, one on one debates in front of the entire country (his nine, 90 minute debate proposal), he clearly defeats her on a weekly basis.
If Newt and Hillary were to debate for 90 minutes, one on one, with no moderator like Newt has been proposing.... the difference would be so crystal clear to the American people who is *really* for bold change, victory in the war on terror, etc... that the actual election would just be a formality.
I know Newt receives a LOT of hatred here, but he is exactly what the country (and conservative movement) needs right now. “More of the same” will lose to Hillary.
If Hillary wins, Soros wins. The strongest, cleanest man with the best experience had better be nominated against her. The people want no more moderates. Only a vigorous, consistent Conservative with plenty of courage and a calm demeanor will win the General election.
Yes, but they’re creating the next generation of conservatives in the process.
Just as the backlash to the Red Scare and hiding under their desks in the event of a nuclear bomb created the liberal generation of the Baby Boomers.
You complain about Republicans being divided but you words mean something to many conservatives.
However, if you decide to run you can not win the presidency due to many factors.
If Hillary wins, Soros wins. The strongest, cleanest man with the best experience had better be nominated against her. The people want no more moderates. Only a vigorous, consistent Conservative with plenty of courage and a calm demeanor will win the General election.
The nominee also has to be willing to take the fight to Hillary, as Giuliani did over MoveOn.org and her “willing suspension of disbelief” comments.
Bush is not perfect but he is a far better man than Clinton’s doppleganger from the right, Newt Gingrich.
/////////////////////
Bush is an NAU SPP Bilderburger. as is much of the republican establishment. they all need to be quietly derailed. newt’s the one to do it.
Don’t you think that is exactly what Fred Thompson is doing?
I wonder if Newt’s negative ratings are higher than Clinton’s.
//////////////
Newt’s negatives are less than Hillary which run at 45%. Considering that Bill never got above 45% because of Ross Perot—its not hard to think that a person blazing a new trail -could beat Hillary.,
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.