I agree that Newt is a fantastic history professor and lecturer, but his debating skill is grossly overrated. He famously debated Clinton and folded.
Then he debated Kerry, and folded too.
Remember "Green Conservatism?"
Posted on 04/27/2011 10:32:42 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
The 2012 Republican Presidential field is still yet to be known. Speculation over candidates pours into the media every day. The truth is, though, that many Republican hopefuls are not taking the fight straight to Obama.
Most Republican hopefuls have either setup exploratory committees, or are still deciding whether or not to throw their hat into the ring. However, it seems columnists and those in the media like to write off certain Republican candidates as not running for the Oval office. Unfortunately, we do not know the truth until they announce their decision.
So, instead of speculating whose running and whose not, let’s evaluate a candidate’s true chance at winning the nomination.
Here’s my take. (Note: This is an analysis, not an endorsement)
First Tier Candidates
Sarah Palin:
Sarah Palin may appear to be not running for President, but if she does, she will steal headlines and media attention more than any other candidate. She has strong governing and executive experience that Republicans want.
Palin doesn’t display "politics as usual," and isn’t an establishment Republican. She’s unconventional, and her ability to raise money and draw a crowd will skyrocket her status. She has a strong following, and is statistically the most favorable candidate of primary voters.
Donald Trump:
Like him or hate him, think he’s Conservative or not; he’s a frontrunner. Not because of his “birtherism,” but because he is going after Obama aggressively, even though he isn’t a principled Conservative. He isn’t politically correct, and Republicans like that.
In sense, he is currently leading the Republican field, but not talking substance. Right now, Republicans want a leader; he’s filling the void… only for now.
Mitt Romney:
Romney has been seen as the presumptive frontrunner since the beginning.....
(Excerpt) Read more at communities.washingtontimes.com ...
I agree that Newt is a fantastic history professor and lecturer, but his debating skill is grossly overrated. He famously debated Clinton and folded.
Then he debated Kerry, and folded too.
Remember "Green Conservatism?"
Huckabee released his SC team yesterday.
That is further indication he is not going to run.
Sarah's balls are greater than or at least equal to the donalds, and I'd love to see the two of them in a policy debate.
The media hates both of them, but the coverage would be through the roof, and I love Sarah in that kind of setting.
I honestly can't see how Mitt Romneycare makes it through the first debate without being crucified upon his own policies.
I would tune in to watch it happen for certain.
Sorry, Nate. I usually agree with most of your positions, but not on this one. I can't agree that ANY of the above points are true, except in the minds of the media. She has been "shaping her forensics" since well before the McCain campaign. And she has done darned well in doing so.
Her biggest failure in that campaign was a naivete about the news media. Since she was trained as a journalist, and was one for a time, she expected at least fair treatment from the press. She failed to realize that the journalism she learned in college and was exposed to in Alaska is NOT the journalism practiced by the national media. And she has been undergoing major training in that area ever snce, hence her acceptance of the Fox job.
She doesn't pull down $100K per speech and draw huge, enthusiastic crowds by not "having good forensics".
“Huckabee released his SC team yesterday.”
No, he didn’t:
That was a false rumor by a SC blogger. The same guy, btw, who was involved in the “Phoney Fred” anti-Thompson website in 2008. He guy was working for... wait for it.... Mitt Romney at the time.
“That is further indication he is not going to run.”
No, it’s not. Actually, with Barbour’s decision not to run, Huckabee may actually be leaning more towards running than he was before.
No one wishes the false rumor was true more than I do, but it just isn’t so.
- JP
Thanks for that clarification.
More Team Romney dirty tricks I see. Thanks for getting to the bottom of it in short order, JP.
Fox News will be televising the first official 2012 primary debate on May 5th in South Carolina. The requirements for participation are that the prospective candidates must have launched an exploratory committee or formal campaign, filed their paperwork with the FEC, paid all the necessary fees, and garnered at least 1% of the vote in five national polls.
The SC GOP recently announced that 5 candidates are expected to participate in the debate: former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, U.S. Rep. Ron Paul of Texas, former Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty, former Louisiana Gov. Buddy Roemer and former U.S. Sen. Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania. Of those, only Pawlenty and Roemer have filed paperwork with the FEC. Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, who has also filed papers legally establishing his candidacy, has not said whether he will participate.
It’s beginning to look as though 2012 may go down in the history books as the election without a GOP candidate. It’s getting ridiculous.
RP picking up substantial votes? Really, he never has before.
In all the media stuff I’ve read bashing Sarah, the only place I ever see that ‘quit as governor’ stuff mentioned is here on Free Republic.
Not sayin’ it isn’t mentioned elsewhere, just sayin’.
In all the media stuff I’ve read bashing Sarah, the only place I ever see that ‘quit as governor’ stuff mentioned is here on Free Republic.
Not sayin’ it isn’t mentioned elsewhere, just sayin’.
As for Gingrich, please understand that my support for him is tentative and relative (don't we all hate that word!) to the other candidates and I repeat my plea that those who object to Gingrich should advance a worthy alternative. So far, only Palin has been mooted. Incidentally, my suspicion is that she will not run. That would be a great pity because she is truly an engaging personality as revealed by her television show about Alaska that I was watching on my computer here in Germany last night. I have seen no better uncontrived example of a real and genuine family which, considering the phoniness of the Clinton and Obama administrations, would indeed be a refreshing change in the White House.
I do not foreclose the real possibility that the primary process itself will reveal a true conservative leader. As of now, however, we are stuck with a process of elimination which leaves me, at least, with Gingrich.
As to Gingrich's alleged declensions concerning global warming, I repost my reply from yesterday on the subject:
"Before referring you to a sound conservative source, American Thinker, I would like to make the point that science is not the province of political ideology. In other words, we are either descended from the apes or we are not, the world is round or it is flat, but the scientific truth of these propositions is not ascertainable by political analysis. In other words, a conservative is entitled to believe in evolution or peak oil, as examples, and he is entitled to believe in anthropomorphic global warming, or climate change, and remain a legitimate conservative.
For the record, I do not believe in the scientific validity of anthropomorphic climate change but that is not because I am a scientist but only because I have weighed the evidence and conclude that the best odds are that the science is unclear, perhaps fraudulent, probably exaggerated, and the remedy unlikely to fix anything. But this conclusion is tentative. It is subject to further instruction and further proof. If I change my mind and become one who believes in anthropomorphic global climate change, it will not make me less of a conservative.
In this context please note the history of the time in which Gingrich accepted the "science" of global warming. This was long before the e-mails were released. Even now after the release of e-mails, it is still not politically correct to deny climate change. Consider this analogy: George Bush got a very important fact very wrong-there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq-but that did not mean that Bush lied, it meant that he made a mistake of fact. Gingrich deserves the same rights to make a plausible mistake of science.
But if I choose nonconservative solutions to climate change, then I am open to the charge of failing a legitimate conservative test. It is upon this line that I base my defense of Gingrich, and it is upon this line of reasoning that Gingrich himself defends his position.
Gingrich says:
"I want to suggest that we need a new science- and technology-based, entrepreneurial, market-oriented and locally led environmentalism."
[A concept Gingrich would essentially reiterate a year later when he speaks in the Gore-mercial of ] "spark[ing] the technology we need," not raising taxes or other big-government solutions."
I cite you an article from April 2008 in the American Thinker which is not favorable to Gingrich and his position on climate change. I put it forth because, on balance, I think his is a reasonable position to take and one which does not compromise a claim to legitimate conservatism. If you accept the premise, that one can believe in climate change and still be a conservative because it is a scientific and not a political question, then one must judge Gingrich on the quality of the conservative content of the solutions he espouses to anthropomorphic global climate change. I believe those solutions are conservative. The article provides contrary arguments ready made for you.
Here is the citation:
Newt's Global Warming Surprise
http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/04/newts_global_warming_surprise.html"
NB, I’ve always respected your opinions and insight, but we’ll just have to disagree on this one. I can never support Gingrich because of his own mushiness and personal behavior, which demonstrates a clear lack of character and integrity. And yeah, you’ve always been a staunch supporter of Sarah Palin. That goes without saying. But I think that she might surpirse you in the coming months. Stay tuned!
Ron Paul got in 2008 republican primaries -
Iowa - 10%
NH - 8%
Nevada - 14%
Maine - 18%
Alaska - 17%
Minnesota - 16%
Montana - 25%
North Dakota - 21%
>> “I’d still say Palin’s biggest obstacle to overcome is the fact that she quit being governor of Alaska.” <<
.
Favorite line of the Concern Trolls.
Thanks for self-identifying.
I agree that Newt is among the smartest of Republicans. I also think Bill Clinton was among the smartest of our Presidents. That doesn’t mean that they make good decisions. In their personal lives, they failed the basic test of responsibility, fidelity to their spouse and family.
Can we trust men who fail that test and then flaunt the results of the failure for all to see with the responsibility for our country’s security? Not only did Newt have personal failures but also he has not been true to conservative values on issues like cap and trade.
You criticize Sarah for a perception in the minds of independents. She can change perceptions. Newt can’t take himself out of the photo with Pelosi. He can’t change his endorsement of Scozzafava. He can’t re-write the history of his speakership.
Thinking about Newt and Sarah brings to the front the question of just what is intelligence. It means little except as a self-serving tool when coupled with a lack of principle. Sarah combines intelligence with principle as did Reagan. As a result she makes wise decisions benefiting many. Politicians who may have intelligence but lack principle make uneven decisions mostly benefiting themselves.
>> “By my process of elimination and based on the situation as we know it today, Newt Gingrich emerges as the most plausible candidate because his baggage does not outweigh his conservatism and his electability.” <<
.
Here we have it!
The absolute most ignorant statement of 2011, and likely to hold the title for the rest of the year.
We know Newt. He’s no conservative, no Christian, and no American Patriot.
His protection of marxist nonsense like public broadcasting, his devious sabotage of conservative congressmen like Bob Dornan (his support of Loretta Sanchez) and his daliance on Nancy Pelosi’s couch while spewing Global Warming propaganda are all the icing on the cake.
Baggage? - Steamer trunks full of it!
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.