Dick Cheney: Don't "Underestimate" Newt Gingrich

Rea Clear Politics ^ | December 12,2011

[Hojczyk]

Erin Burnett, CNN: In your book, you talk about -- you knew Newt Gingrich, know Newt Gingrich.

Dick Cheney: He's an old friend.

Burnett: Alright, so he your guy? Does he have your vote?

Cheney: I have not endorsed anybody. I've stayed religiously out of the fray on our side this year. I've been trying to sell books. And that's where my effort's been focused.

Burnett: There's a conventional wisdom, though, that Newt Gingrich will cut his own legs off at some point, and that while he may sweep through the primary season, Mitt Romney's the guy you have that's actually electable versus Barack Obama. Is that a load of -- something, manure?

Cheney: I have not endorsed anybody on either side. The thing I remember about Newt, we came to Congress together at the same time, '78.

Burnett: Right.

Cheney: When Newt showed up he said, we can become the majority, we can take back the House of Representatives. We hadn't had the House since the 1940s. And initially, none of us believed it. But he was persistent, he was tenacious. He kept it up, kept it up, and kept it up. Finally by '94 he's the newly elected Speaker of the House of Representatives with a Republican majority. So I wouldn't underestimate him.

[SamuraiScot]

Burnett: There's a conventional wisdom, though, that Newt Gingrich will cut his own legs off at some point . . .

Recycled gases borrowed by the mind of a twit. I guess she went to CNN because MSNBC wasn't liberal enough for her. The late, great Mark Haines was a saint for putting up with her relentlessly conventional, gee-gosh, socialist talking points.

[RummyChick]

This is well said. Look at all the possible candidates. Who is tough enough??? Who is enough of a bastard to do what needs to be done.

His stance on the Palestians that he won’t back down from shows how tough he can be.

We won’t like everything he does. This I feel certain of ..but we are in such trouble that we have got to have someone who will kick Obama’s ass out of that White House.

[Darth Reardon]

The American people know we are in serious trouble, and they’ll look to the smartest guy in the room. In most years, I don’t think Newt has a chance. He’s kinda old, kinda fat, and says the hard things people don’t want to hear. But at this time, I think the people know we need the adults in charge.

I wish it was Cain, however.

[Ancesthntr]

At 79, the history professor will have some valuable skills for the Presidency.

Newt is 68, having been born in June, 1943. Your point about him having experience is still valid, however.

As for me, right now he's the most conservative guy out there with a chance to beat Obama. That's not to say that he's a doctrinaire Conservative - he's not - but he's certainly more conservative than Romney, and the rest have about zero chance to beat Zero. Since my philosophy about choices is, "the Perfect is the enemy of the Good," I am a Gingrich supporter. No candidate out there is perfect, nor will such ever exist. But our Republic and Western Civilization desperately needs to defeat Zero, and right now Newt is the one to do it. The media has been easy on Romney so far (just like McStain in '08), but the moment that he's the actual nominee the gloves will come off. Romney hasn't been in fights like Newt, and I believe that only Newt can take all of the hits that are on the way and come out on top.

By the way, in terms of personal characteristics and habits vs. politics, the following quiz is instructive:

It is time to elect a new world leader, and only your vote counts. Here are the facts about the three leading candidates:

Candidate A - He was kicked out of office twice, sleeps until noon, used opium in college and drinks a quart of whiskey every evening.

Candidate B - He is a decorated war hero. He's a vegetarian, doesn't smoke, drinks an occasional beer and never cheated on his wife.

Which of these candidates would be your choice?

Candidate A is Winston Churchill.

Candidate B is Adolph Hitler.

Now this proves nothing other than that one's personal characteristics and habits have little to do with what one's potential may be (and, of course, one's motivations), but I am simply not willing to count out Newt because of his various relationships with females. Besides, at age 68 he's probably not going to be doing much in the way of what he did earlier in his life. It simply isn't an issue for me, and I wish it wasn't one for others.

[SamAdams76]

Many people get upset with Reagan comparisons. Ronald Reagan has been so deified - not entirely without good reason - that we have made it virtually impossible for anybody else to measure up.

But I'm old enough to remember Ronald Reagan when he was a failed presidential candidate and derided by many as a "B-movie" actor who co-starred with chimps.

I remember the 1980 campaign very clearly as it was the first election I really paid attention to and voted in. At the time, Reagan's upstart candidacy (he entered the race late) was seen by the GOP establishment as a nuisance and an unnecessary distraction. Many in the Republican establishment were pushing the moderate George Bush and felt that Reagan was just too conservative to unseat an incumbent president.

The establishment (RINO) GOP were so upset when Reagan started gaining traction that some of them backed John Anderson to bolt from the party to run as an Independent. John Anderson actually marketed his campaign as a moderate alternative to the "right-wing extremist" Reagan.

Despite the third party effort (Anderson ended up with 6,000,000 votes and nearly 7% of the total vote), Reagan whipped the incompetent Democrat Jimmy Carter in an epic landslide.

It is important to note that since Ronald Reagan last ran in 1984 (in which he also won in a large landslide), the Republicans have not run a real conservative since then...to wit:

• 1988 - RINO George HW Bush (won handily but it was Mike Dukakis)
• 1992 - RINO George HW Bush (Lost a fairly close election)
• 1996 - RINO Bob Dole (Lost to a flawed incumbent)
• 2000 - RINO George W. Bush (Barely won against weak opponent)
• 2004 - RINO George W. Bush (Barely won against another weak opponent)
• 2008 - RINO John McCain (Lost a close election to a socialist)
• 2012 - ??? Will we nominate another RINO like Mitt Romney?

What I'm trying to say above is that since Reagan, the GOP has run a RINO in every election since and the result is that they either lose or when they win, they win only by the skin of their teeth with the exception of 1988, which can be attributed in part to Bush Sr. benefitting from the lingering goodwill of the departing Reagan.

I feel that had the GOP run a real conservative like Reagan in ANY of the elections subsequent to 1988, the races we lost could have been won and the ones we barely won would have been blowouts.

It is thus very important that Mitt Romney is prevented from securing the nomination as his candidacy will almost surely point to a re-election for Obama as previous election trends bear out. Many Americans will go out of their way to vote for a conservative president but for a RINO, they will sit on their hands.

[CutePuppy]

From when he was banging that hill staffer during Klinton's impeachment?

By "banging that hill staffer" you mean "dating his future (and current) wife Callista he married two years later, after leaving Congress and finally divorcing his chain-smoking 'sick' wife after having been legally separated from her since 1987 and financially supporting her all that time, despite living separately and her threats of derailing his potential political career by giving personal interviews to reporters" - is it "that hill staffer"?

Ref: Newt Gingrich describes importance of faith in political decisions - FR, post #69, posts #72, #73, #77, 2011 October 31

Newt refuses to defend himself or discuss his personal life or dish the dirt on the former wife (Marianne saw him only as her personal meal ticket on a gravy train) and instead asked for forgiveness for more than his "fair share" of his real and imagined transgressions (failed marriages are not always man's fault, and it usually takes more than one person to screw up a marriage).

Once he left the Congress, he moved on to a more productive personal life and relationship with God (including converting to his wife's lifetime religion) and building from scratch several small businesses and conservative organizations, and supporting other conservative coalitions.

We may or may not like his strategy or methods (they may not seem "pure" or conservative enough for us) but they've been mostly more effective against relentless liberals / "progressives" legislative and judicial assaults on our freedoms than decade of leaderships of Speaker Hastert and President George W. Bush.

Newt has already inoculated himself from the personal attacks by acknowledging "past personal mistakes" so he is now immune to whatever "bimbo eruptions," real or made up, that could be thrown at him, the kind that have plagued Clinton and, more recently, Herman Cain.

While liberals will keep talking about his personal "baggage" (like "banging that hill staffer") and projecting their own "hypocrisy" on conservatives during the campaign, he has already inoculated himself from their personal attacks by acknowledging "past personal mistakes" and he will be talking to the people about what the country needs to do to get out from under Obama's "change" / "malaise".

Who do you think will get better of that exchange?

[Georgia Girl 2]

Agreed. I think Newt is the right guy for this time in history. We need someone who thinks out of the box and is not afraid to try radically different approaches. The same old same old is not going to get us out of this financial mess.

[WPaCon]

I never understand the “unelectable” card being played on Newt.

He’s an articulate conservative with plenty of experience and does not have a personality that many would consider abrasive.

On the other hand, I can see why all of the following candidates who had the “unelectable” card played against them could have been considered unelectable:

Cain—inexperienced
Perry—inarticulate
Bachmann—abrasive personality to many; only been a rep for a few years

[nikos1121]

What’s the announcement all about today at 1pm?

[Gene Eric]

ping

[Georgia Girl 2]

“What’s the announcement all about today at 1pm?”

The scuttlebutt is that Herman Cain may show up and endorse Newt at the press conference. I’m tuning in to see what happens.

[Gator113]

If anyone knows the strength and value of Newt, it would certainly be Cheney.

Great news....

[CowboyJay]

Not to pick nits, but we’re still trying to clean up the mess Nixon left behind with the EPA and debasing the dollar. The country can’t afford another Nixon any more than we can another 4 years of Obama.

[RockinRight]

True enough, but I was speaking from more a political/electoral perspective than policy.

[RockinRight]

I feel that had the GOP run a real conservative like Reagan in ANY of the elections subsequent to 1988, the races we lost could have been won and the ones we barely won would have been blowouts.

Maybe. Reagan was conservative, but he won because he knew how to SELL conservatism, to help voters realize that conservatives weren't a bunch of rich, white, slave-owning corporate fat cats.

[gleeaikin]

At least Cheney isn’t misunderestimating him, although Mitt might.

[Brookhaven]

there are times a people find themselves in such dire straights with so many problems that only a real bastard can pull their fat out of the fire. I submit to you that Newt Gingrich is that bastard.

I've hesitated to make the comparison, but the fact is Newt could end up being a figure similar to Winston Churchill.

Churchill had been out of power for so long, it was thought he was past his prime; totally irellevant; and his career was over. Then WWII broke out, and the British realized they need and old style, hard nosed, sob if they were going to win the war. Churchill became prime minister and "saved the day". ( When the war ended, the British promply dumped Chruchill like yesterday's news).

[katiedidit1]

Why I would NEVER support Bachmann. She tried to screw our veterans.

http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2011/01/28/141412/bachmann-veterans/

In her tea party-fueled quest to cut government spending and social programs, Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-MN) has unveiled a plan to cut $400 billion in federal spending that includes freezing the Veterans Affairs Department’s health care spending and cuts veterans’ disability benefits. The Air Force Times reports her plan would slice $4.5 billion from the VA, including reducing 150,000 veterans’ disability compensation and the amount they receive in Social Security Disability Income.A host of veterans groups slammed Bachmann’s plan:

–Veterans of Foreign War national commander Richard L. Eubank said, “The only discussion the VFW wants is to tell the congresswoman that her plan is totally out of step with America’s commitment to our troops.

Bachmann has House’s 11th WORST record for missed votes...she is not fulfilling her duties to her constituents
Of 435 members of the U.S. House of Representatives, only ten have missed more votes this session than Minnesota Rep. Michele Bachmann, according to the Washington Post’s tally. Bachmann has missed 105 votes, or 13.6 percent of all votes. Fellow Republican Rep. Erik Paulsen had the state’s best record, missing only six votes in the 111th Congress, just one less than Rep. Tim Walz missed.
While California Democrat Rep. Hilda Solis had the highest rate of missed votes — she missed 59 of 78 possibles votes — the number of missed votes by party is roughly the same: Democrats missed 3.5 percent of votes, while Republicans missed 3.3 percent.
Another Minnesotan high on the list: At number 23, Rep. Keith Ellison missed ten percent of the votes, casting 695 and missing 78. Here’s how others in Minnesota’s delegation fared:
Rep. Betty McCollum: 16 missed (2.1 percent of all votes), 757 cast
Rep. Collin Peterson: 25 missed (1.9), 758 cast
Rep. Jon Kline: 12 missed (1.6), 761 cast
Rep. James Oberstar: 10 missed (1.3), 763 cast
Rep. Tim Walz: 7 missed (1.3), 766 cast
Rep. Erik Paulsen: 6 missed (0.8), 767 cast

Bachmann’s Farm Subsidies...more will come out on this..and NO the questions have not been fully answerd.
Bachmann has said that the farm’s founder, her father-in-law, Paul Bachmann, is the only member of the Bachmann Farm Family Limited Partnership who ever applied for farm subsidies — a statement borne out by federal documents. He last applied for federal payments in 2007, and he died in 2009.
But federal documents and courthouse entries in Alma, Wis., show that a neighbor has picked up where the patriarch left off. The Bachmann family partnership signed a lease agreement with the neighbor in April 2008, and he is actively enrolled in the same FSA aid programs.
From 1995 through 2007, the FSA paid $259,000 in commodities and disaster subsidies to the Bachmann farm. Since 2008, FSA payments to the neighbor’s expanded operations have totaled $52,921, records show.
The Bachmann for President team didn’t respond to the Star Tribune’s inquiries about the farm, but a campaign statement given to Politico last month said her share of income from the farm is wrapped up in the family partnership, which she said was formed for estate planning purposes. Bachmann, her husband, Marcus, and their five children belong to the partnership but documents don’t say how much of it they control. Marcus has two brothers, and his mother, Elma, is still alive.
http://www.startribune.com/politics/130509053.html

Not to mention she violated Reagan’s law and attacked Palin via her campaign manager; Perry, Newt and Cain’s 999 plan which she referred to as being more like 666. She also mentioned Trump as a potential vice president.
However, MORE than anything..I won’t forgive her for trying to take our disabled veteran’s benefits away ...she can go to Hades.

[jdsteel]

Thanks for the correction!

[jdsteel]

Thanks for the age correction and excellent post. I had heard the Hiitler - Churchill comparison before. I think th MSM woul be pulling for Hitler these days!