Replies

I agree with you on process-a process of elimination-but I disagree with your conclusion.

Every one of the potential candidates is flawed, Sarah Palin not the least among them. She is not flawed ideologically but with respect to electability. She has steadfastly declined to shape her delivery, her forensics if you will, to the point at which she can project gravitas, the level of seriousness and competence that independents always yearn for in a president because they vote the man, not his ideology.

Your analysis omits entirely Newt Gingrich. Like the other candidates, he too is flawed. Every time I posit his candidacy as the most plausible on balance from all perspectives among the current field, I get in response a photo of him sitting next to Nancy Pelosi on a couch. I never get any reasons or discussion of his conservative biography or a commonsense acceptance of his forensics skills. No acknowledgment is ever made of his intellectual capacity or his ability to debate. Sometimes, reference is made to his zipper problems. Yet, the same conservatives will strain at a gnat and swallow a camel as they puke all over their keyboards at the mention of Newt Gingrich but swoon at the idea of the mountebank, Trump.

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. This is a subjective judgment and I fully understand that other Freepers depart from me on this conclusion.

What I do not understand is the absence of engagement on the issue, the reflexive rejection of Newt Gingrich, often on mistaken assumptions while indulging a myopia for the weaknesses of the rest of the field.

I’d like to hear why Newt is so bad.

I hear “Global Warming” and “Globalist”.

That’s from a policy perspective.

And the situation with divorcing the wife is also bad.
Newt hasn’t been taking too many constant hits here. Mitt has. The despise level here of Newt is not as high as Mitt.

Republicans do like to give the nomination to candidates for good service. Newt did do a good job 16 years ago. Contract With America did work, and he was a Republican Hero for a short period of time. Since then, a bunch of not so good things, but he does have what would be equivalent to a top 5 win, or multiple top 5 wins. What has Romney done to be the presumptive front runner? Was there last time. He was the Governor of Mass, giving Gay Marriage and Romneycare. That’s not Republican. There are no victories.
Nobody really looked closely at what Bain Capital did, which was break companies up while pocketing big $. Romney did a little too much destroying companies for me.

I would like to hear the anti Gingrich side a little more, because I know so much unacceptable about Romney.

... She is not flawed ideologically but with respect to electability. ...

Your "analysis" is flawed. You take the usual trip down the MSM road, and try to convert that into a "no way, Jose" conclusion.

When Governor Palin announces, the floodgates will open, not with just money, but with energized supporters. She is in no hurry, and is carefully constructing a solid base. There are many ready to go to work for her. No sand under that woman, for sure...

Spin all you want, Newt is just another lizard!

Click to learn more about her...

Elect Sarah Palin for President 2012

Re-Elect President Sarah Palin 2016

The core problems with Gingrich, of whom I at times have had great respect, are that he was basically jettisoned by the rest of the GOP leadership in the last 90s do to his conduct as Speaker, he has been very unreliable at time to the conservative movement (and fairly has also at times been our most successful advocate), and seems to be able to be bought by the highest bidder when it comes to many issues.

He is one of our greatest thinkers, and I welcome him to the debate because I think he will make the entire field better in their preparation for the general election. In the end, I think he would have trouble in a general election because he developed some of the same problems with the voting public 10 years ago that Palin has faced in the past 18 months. Both have a challenge to get beyond their established public opinion. As a newer face, I suspect Palin is more likely to be successful in a national election at some point in the next decade than Gingrich, who can be dismissed as a guy from an era past.

No acknowledgment is ever made of his intellectual capacity or his ability to debate.

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?"

Gingrich vs. Kerry: Shoot-out at the climate change corral

"She is not flawed ideologically but with respect to electability. She has steadfastly declined to shape her delivery, her forensics if you will, to the point at which she can project gravitas, the level of seriousness and competence that independents always yearn for in a president because they vote the man, not his ideology."

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".

Good discussion. Newt Gingrich is an interesting candidate. Certainly more palatable than Romney, Trump, and Huckabee. There are others as well that would be interesting, ie: Cain, West, Bachmann, Ryan, etc. But the posted article only focused on this small group. So I limited my comments.

In 1995 Newt was in the position where the Republican Congress could have passed a balanced budget amendment. They had the votes, but failed us miserably. I resent that. But ... he is forthcoming with admissions that he's made a number of mistakes (and certainly not all political ones). He's encouraged the new Congress to learn from his mistakes and not repeat them. If, in his heart of hearts, he's turned a new leaf and is serious about improving society and not just "being President", he'd make an interesting candidate. Of course, he'd still be the "old white Republican guard member" running against the "young black educated leader". McCain couldn't pull it off ... maybe Gingrich could. Certainly he stands a better chance.

However, the tipping point is the Republican primary. There's no way Gingrich could in any conceivable scenario win even the best run "third-party" or "write-in" campaign. Too much baggage and not enough notoriety. If he is not the Republican primary winner, he does not stand a chance. The only candidate I can conceive of making a race out this as a third-party or write-in candidate would be Sarah Palin. She alone has the fire in the Tea Party's heart to pull it off. If the GOP hands us another McCain caliber candidate after the primary, I'll be watching for Palin to run third-party. If she doesn't, we end up with Obama again. It's about that simple, I think.

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!