Posted on 11/17/2011 6:43:59 PM PST by SeekAndFind
When Richard M. Nixon ran for the Republican presidential nomination in 1968, he faced a daunting problem: A lot of voters just didn't like him. Nixon had made his name in politics as an angry, partisan hatchet man, famous for lashing out against Democrats and the news media. To win the presidency, he needed to find a way to soften that too-harsh image.
In the months before the 1968 primaries, Nixon's campaign staged gauzy television segments that showed the candidate gently answering questions from ordinary citizens, not pesky reporters. In a nation that was divided by domestic crises and the war in Vietnam, Nixon stressed positive themes and "the lift of a driving dream." Reporters wrote about a "New Nixon" and voters who were rallying to his cause.
Now, almost half a century later, another not-always-lovable conservative is trying to stage a similar comeback: Newt Gingrich. This week's polls show Gingrich, whose candidacy was once given up for dead, in a virtual tie with former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney.
Part of the reason, as Gingrich himself says, is simple process of elimination: Conservative voters have tried out a succession of other candidates — Tim Pawlenty, Michele Bachmann, Rick Perry, Herman Cain — and found each wanting.
But there's another reason for Gingrich's rise: He doesn't sound as angry as he once did. We appear to be witnessing "New Newt."
Old Newt — Angry Newt, the one who entered the presidential campaign last spring — talked in apocalyptic terms about threats to American culture. Old Newt wrote about "a secular-socialist machine" led by the Democratic Party that "represents as great a threat to America as Nazi Germany or the Soviet Union once did."
"If we do not decisively win the struggle over the nature of America," he warned,
(Excerpt) Read more at latimes.com ...
Yes. I watched this video http://vimeo.com/32001208 earlier and thought what a wondrous world we have here. And then I came back down to the ground.
One last thing. I personally find it kind of refreshing that a candidate like Newt would stand up, as he has, & say, hey I was wrong, my mind has changed. He doesn’t make excuses, doesn’t try & cover up, just says, I was wrong.
Can you imagine? And yet there are those here that still want to roast the dude.
Thanks for making my point. Exhibit A
You’re wrong. Just wrong. So, whatever should we do if we have the choice between an avowed Marxist in office instead or an adulterer? If that’s the choice you go with FOUR MORE YEARS OF MARXISM?
Cripes.
So, I stand corrected and am happy you pointed that out to me. Hopefully that will be my penultimate grammatical mistake ...for tonight!
‘Take care,
-Geoff
Further more. Please site the FACTUAL evidence that was a LOBBYIST who profited from Obamacare. Also site evidence that Newt was “booted out of congress” rather than declining to run again & resign of his own volition. And then please site the reason for Clinton’s impeachment (hint, it had nothing to do w/ sexual indiscretions, it was about perjury & obstruction of justice).
The left doesn’t care much about facts either.
Thanks for being so nice. I figured you’d say, ‘Who died and made you the grammar nazi?’. Instead you gave me a good laugh—much appreciated!
If you write lies in big, bold fonts does that make them more “scary”?
I think Mitt Romney is being pushed by the left and the right. The left has directed their vitriol everywhere except towards him and it’s obvious that the GOP already picked Mitt many months ago. Every potential candidate has risen up only to be systematically torn back down by both the left wing and right wing media outlets except Mitt Romney. Some of them only needed to be given the rope and they hanged themselves of course but the media has been right there all along ensuring that all obstacles in Mitt Romney’s path are removed. Newt is the last of them and, as expected, both sides are attempting to derail his candidacy. He’s the last of them unless you think Huntsman or Paul is all of a sudden going to surge which seems unlikely to me. I’m going to vote for Newt when the time comes and my hope is that, should he win, he picks Michele Bachmann as his VP.
Many years ago I attended the College of William and Mary. At that time the standard in their English department was a failing grade if a paper contained a single grammatical mistake; including spelling, punctuation etc ...and this was before the days of PC's and spell-check. Subsequently, I had to work very hard to get a solid B; but, I learned more from that experience than from any other course that I have ever taken.
Nope.
I certainly never said we should pander to the Dem base, nor do I think that.
My point simply is that the Dems are afraid know that Obama is in big trouble. That means they know that some, maybe a lot, of their voters may think about staying home, or if the alternative is seen as Obama-lite, voting for the alternative (the GOP nominee).
The Dems cannot afford to have ANY votes peeled off. So one of the things they would need to make sure of is that the GOP nominee is as unacceptable to the Dem base as they can possibly make him.
I mean: that's Politics 101 anyway. But it's harder to demonize the GOP nominee if, like Romney, he can be made to look, sound and act like Obama-lite.
If it's true that the Dems want Newt as the nominee, that doesn't necessarily mean we shouldn't nominate him. We have to nominate the guy who best, and with the most optimism, articulates his authentic beliefs in conservatism.
I'm just saying thinking about how the general election might roll out from the Dems' point of view can be instructive.
Sure!
One way to do that is, no matter how you feel about why someone posted something, don't label them with perjorative names, but simply go ahead and substantively address the points in the article.
If you get tired of addressing the points, don't label the posters with perjorative names or get off track discussing over and over again your thoughts on their motives for posting. Just stop posting on those threads. They will go away soon enough.
Not addressing this to you specifically, Confab. A general observation.
He has to balance it (which he’s been doing). Come across as personable and “nice” while keeping just enough of that legitimate anger to keep people thinking about the future.
I like Newt, too, but "we" go back a long way. I've experienced a lot of his "reaching across the aisle" moments and, frankly, am not enthused about going there again or about how Newt's political instincts could affect the nation at this time.
I've been a pretty strong advocate for Newt in a VP slot, but I'm reconsidering even that a little after going down Memory Lane with him again.
Someone posted yesterday he's like the boyfriend you break up with over and over again. Then he shows up at your door with flowers and candy, and you suddenly take him back. I replied that the next step was waking up going WHAT THE HELL WAS I THINKING?? NOW I KNOW WHY I DROP-KICKED THIS "BIPARTISAN" LOSER!!
Not that Newt is a loser, per se, but you get my drift.
My hope is that Newt doesn't start trumpeting this. I can only see that this tack will be damaging if he does.
Problem is that this is exactly what reflects Gingrich's deep-seated POLTICAL INSTINCTS. This is who he is because of when he became a fully-formed politician, 20 years ago.
It's like what they say about Tebow. He (they say) can practice and practice new, more effective mechanics. But when the pressure is really on, when he gets into his zone, he's always going to revert to how he's always thrown the ball. I.e., his instinctive throw.
Seems to be working out for Tebow, despite the naysayers, eh. But I'm not willing to extend the analogy that far to Newt. I don't think his political instincts are ones that would help lead to victory over the nation's problems.
But, some of these folks that continue to cling to hopeless candidates is something else. They're politicians... That's all.
Speaking of the Colts, more on that in a minute.
I look at the presidential election, including the primaries, as a hiring decision. I don't just look at a stack of resumes, and interview records, and say if I "like" one guy, I'm just immediately throwing the other files out.
The more important the hiring decision, the more important it is to keep your options open (keep the files of your top applicants in play) WHILE you drill down into their records and character to make that hiring decision.
Pushing hard on an applicant's weaknesses is a test and an appropriate one. Of course, you have to do that before saying "yes, he's the guy, hire him."
And the reason you don't just immediately throw away your other top applicants' files (the other candidates, Cain if you're leaning toward Newt, Newt if you're leaning toward Cain), is, by golly, you may be drilling down and find something really rotten. But no problem: you're not in love with this guy, you're thinking about hiring him for a job. So if you find a problem, you set his file aside and revisit your other top applicants' files.
As for the Colts:
Here's a story I've told on FR before and I really love it.
Remember when the Colts were thinking about drafting Peyton Manning. They had to choose between drafting Petyon Manning and Ryan Leaf. Of course, looks like a no-brainer now, but at the time it was a difficult decision. The owner said he just went back and forth on it. Problem was these two players both had fantastic football skills and they both had various good things about their football decision skills and instincts.
I remember reading the owner said he was literally laying awake at night trying to decide. Then it came to him: go with the player with the highest level of character and the best work ethic. That was Peyton Manning and the rest is history.
I think that's a lesson for all of life, but it also applies in politics. If you've got two candidates who are about equal in skill (if not equivalent), go with the one with the best character.
I am concerned about this as well.
However, on the flip side, the only candidate, save for maybe Cain or Perry, who won’t be afraid to utter words like “Solyndra” and “Bill Ayers” is NEWT.
Newt can counterattack. The others can’t, or won’t.
There’s a fine line with regards to “reaching across the aisle”.
As far as Newt’s comments, well, the country is a lot more divided now than it ever was, and a lot of swing voters dislike partisanship...so that’s where that comes from.
Back to “bipartisanship.” When you have a divided government, you HAVE to be bipartisan, or nothing will get passed. That’s a reality that many of us refused to face when the budget/debt ceiling debacles were going down. The Democrat-controlled Senate was JUST NOT GOING TO VOTE FOR the GOP bills, no matter how much we jumped up and down.
Bipartisanship, if it means “learning how to schmooze the other side into supporting your bill” is fine. If it means “bend over and surrender” it’s not. The GOP, unfortunately, does the latter too often.
However, when you control both houses of Congress AND the Presidency, well, it’s different now. However, you still have to be able to “sell” your ideas, so you don’t lose the next election.
#2 - that's a lie, he never said that, some interpreted it that way though
#3 - All of which were dropped but one, and that was proven BS later on, too
#4 - that's between him and God, and yeah, it bothers me
Amen Rockin:))
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.