3 GOP presidential hopefuls talk of unifying party

Boehner is not my target.

My targets are the sorry Republicans in the House who daily choose to keep him there as Speaker.

Because of them, they allow Boehner to stay on as Speaker, who then agrees to Cave-In to anything that any loud Democrat voice wants.

I wonder why that is (keeping him on) - it is inexplicable out here in the peanut gallery.

A variation of that question is what I post on FR everyday.

BTW, please ping me when you figure it out - - - .

.

Speaker Newt Gingrich isn't an announced candidate ... yet ...

I'm a subscriber to his frequent political analysis and commentary e-newletters.

They are EXCELLENT ... ranging in subjects from the dangers of an national-level EMP attack to how the Republican Party should navigate the future.

You can subscribe at: GingrichProuductions.com

Here's Newt's Gingrich's latest commentaries about Eric Cantor's Defeat and the GOP's future.

I chalenge EVERYONE at Free Republic (Jim Robinson, et al) to take a close read at Newt Gingrich's ideas.

Ask yourself this Question ?

Is ANYONE in the Tea Party or Conservative Movement offering these types of DETAILD solution proposals ?

Sadly, not yet.

This FACT underscores that Newt Gingrich is THE BEST QUALIFIED American Conservative Leader for the 2016 GOP Presidential Nomination.

and ULTIMATELY the 45th President of the United States of America.

Enjoy ...

Eric Cantor, Lindsey Graham and the Future of the GOP

Tuesday night's primaries had two interesting results.

First, in a shock which can legitimately be called a political earthquake, House Republican Majority Leader Eric Cantor lost his seat in Richmond, Virginia after 13 years of service in Congress.

Second, in a turnaround from what many observers might have predicted two years ago, Senator Lindsey Graham won his primary by a wide margin.

The news media is focusing on the Cantor defeat only, but that is misleading.

Graham potentially had fully as much grassroots opposition as Cantor. He knew it and he responded to that reality. Senator Graham went home frequently, listened to his constituents' complaints, explained his policies and emphasized the points on which they agreed.

Graham understood the first rule of American politics, which is that the voter is King. The voter loans power to the elected official but they can always take it back. Wise elected officials always remember that power really does come from the people.

In retrospect, Cantor’s constituents clearly believed that he had forgotten this fact. In the last few weeks, there were a few indications of trouble for the Leader.

At an event in his district, conservative activists booed him. His preferred candidate to chair the congressional convention was also defeated.

Cantor’s opponent, Dave Brat, is a local college professor who was virtually unknown until the Cantor campaign began running attack ads against him.

It may be that the attacks reminded voters that there was an alternative--that they were ultimately sovereign--and tempted them to exercise that power against one of the most senior members of Congress.

Cantor should sue his pollster and his consultants for malpractice.

They outspent the challenger 25 to 1 and lost. They spent almost as much on steakhouse dinners ($170,000) as Brat's entire campaign spent (about $200,000).

Cantor is a very smart, hard-working, and serious man with an admirable record of 13 years of service in Congress and another decade of service in the Virginia legislature before that.

Losing a race does not have to be the end of the line. Bill Clinton lost the governorship in 1980 after one term and came back to serve ten more years in the Governor's mansion. I lost my first two races for Congress.

If Cantor slows down, visits with folks in his district and reflects on the lessons of leadership in a free society, he could well end up as governor or a senator. He could also pursue a career in the private sector or become a cabinet officer in the next Republican presidency.

There was one other big winner Tuesday night.

The Independent Women's Voice organization has developed a pledge to repeal Obamacare.

Brat signed it. Cantor did not.

Chris McDaniel signed the pledge in the Mississippi Senate primary and is now ahead in a runoff against a 36-year incumbent.

Clearly, repealing Obamacare will have to be a major Republican pledge this fall.

I was surprised at the intense reaction to Cantor's defeat I got from a number of old friends around the country. They weren't mad at Eric as a person.

But they were infuriated with the general Republican failure to fight Obama effectively and saw the loss as a signal of that frustration.

On Friday I will outline the challenge to Republican Congressional leadership in a post-Cantor world.

Your Friend,

Newt

======================================================

A Third Strategy for Congressional Republicans

In the 20th anniversary year of the Contract with America, it is time to confront the need for a new Republican strategy to defeat Obamaism.

Many Americans believe they are watching increasing lawlessness, incompetence and dishonesty in President Obama and his administration, and that this poses an increasingly powerful challenge for the Congressional Republicans.

The scale of the threat and the breadth of Obama's activities leaves them feeling angry and hopeless.

In just the last few weeks, President Obama has released terrorists without consulting Congress, failed to coordinate on the collapse in Iraq, allowed thousands of children to illegally enter the United States, issued extraordinarily destructive (and probably illegal) new, job-killing rules from the Environmental Protection Agency--and the list goes on.

Meanwhile, the President has been presiding over the corruption and collapse of the Veterans Administration with at least 51 sites in 29 states and the District of Columbia already implicated in wrongdoing. (See this interactive map for more.)

Most Republican supporters see the Congressional response to the Obama Administration as too small, too slow, or too weak to be effective.

Both their oath of office to defend the Constitution and the rising fear and anger of their constituents require the Congressional Republicans to develop a new strategy.

Most of the Washington elite discounts the depth of anger among conservative Americans about what they see as literally the destruction of their country. Most of our elites shrug off the fears, alienation and hostility these conservative Americans feel toward a president they view as weakening the nation, destroying the rule of law, and undermining the values they believe in and live by.

There have been two initial Republican strategies to respond to Obama. Both have failed.

First, there has been the strategy of heroic but suicidal frontal assaults. Obama has the power of the presidency, the support of an overwhelming majority of the news media and an extraordinary willingness to say whatever is needed with no regard for the truth.

Given the President's advantages, any poorly thought-out frontal attacks are as doomed as frontal attacks against machine guns were in World War I.

The shutdown last fall is a classic example of choosing a fight where the other side has all the advantages.

Luckily for the Republicans, the Obamacare implementation disaster was so extraordinary that it rapidly erased any damage done to Republicans by inflicting much worse damage on Obama and the Democrats.

Second, faced with the enthusiasm of some of their colleagues for suicidal heroics, a number of Republicans decided that a better strategy was to do nothing, pick no fights, and take no risks.

This strategy of minimal effort was endorsed by a consulting class which loves to focus its candidates on raising money to buy negative ads (a strategy which blew up disastrously for Majority Leader Cantor in Richmond this week).

The power of the consulting community's hostility to positive ideas and positive solutions cannot be underestimated.

The problem with the take-no-risk, pursue-no-ideas, offer-no-reforms, fight-over-nothing strategy is that it is ultimately self defeating.

First, we are told we should take no risks so that we can get through the 2014 election because then we will win control of the Senate and gain 8 to 12 seats in the house.

Then we will be told that we should take no risks in 2015 because we want to focus on keeping control of the Senate and wait for a presidential nominee who will tell us what to do.

Of course, having taken no risks, avoided all fights, and developed no new solutions, our candidate will have a bare cupboard for a platform and will be told to run on an anti-Hillary ad campaign.

If we win a purely negative campaign in 2016 (remember the 2004 anti-Kerry campaign), we will have no political capital to reform anything.

If we lose the presidency in 2016, we will face a newly elected chief executive who will claim a mandate and will try to move America even further toward big government bureaucracy and leftist values.

And we will have had no practice at fighting and winning.

For both practical and moral reasons, doing nothing, avoiding fighting and offering no ideas is a losing strategy.

So if suicidal fights are bad and doing nothing is bad, what is the third strategy?

A THIRD STRATEGY FOR CONGRESSIONAL REPUBLICANS

Republicans need a new strategy of running a John Wooden-style full court press against the Obama Administration.

They can't beat Obama and his media allies in one single, narrowly focused frontal fight.

On the other hand, the are so many different things going wrong that Obama and his media allies can't defend themselves against a hundred different fronts, each eroding the administration's position and building an alternative governing majority for Republicans.

This new strategy requires a series of large changes for the Congressional Republicans.

1. First, they must announce and emphasize a new strategy of dramatically improving America through better solutions. This is not a political strategy. This is a strategy of creating a better future for America. The core concept--that we can break out in virtually every aspect of government by looking for best practices throughout the private sector and by looking for the new capabilities being developed by pioneers of the future--should be emphasized in every committee and subcommittee.

They should contrast the incompetence, inefficiency and at times corruption of the old bureaucratic systems with the potential speed, accuracy, accountability and transparency of new modern systems.

Developing a 21st century veterans service system would be a logical starting place since the VA is so clearly collapsing and corrupt.

The VA transformation would be a good template for transforming other departments and for thinking through the challenge of an Obamacare replacement.

2. Every subcommittee has to be empowered to hold hearings, undertake investigations, and develop issues. For example, a subcommittee should be on the border this weekend investigating the flood of children pouring into the United States.

The scale of activism required means that leadership has to rely on training and planning to create a culture of decentralized activism. It is impossible to centrally plan and implement a multiple-front campaign.

Subcommittee chairs and their staffs need to be trained and then released to learn by doing. The key steps that every member and staff needs to be prepared for are:

explaining why this hearing matters and what the struggle to change and improve things is all about;

explaining how this particular hearing or bill relates to the values and goals of the American people so their lives will be better;

explaining what the current administration and the current systems are doing wrong and how that is hurting people; explaining how our replacement would improve things and what the principles that explain it are;
explaining how your life will be better if we succeed in changing the law and the bureaucracy.

3. Each area of investigation and policy development needs to have language developed which gives Republicans moral dominance in debating Democrats about those issues.

We have to train ourselves to understand the importance of winning the argument in the media. We also have to work to talk in common, everyday language so people understand that we care about them and their lives.

As Jack Kemp taught us, "People have to know that you care before they care that you know." Learning to both speak about the impact on people’s lives and to win the argument will make a huge difference.

4. Wherever possible, focus the fight on Obama's bureaucrats rather than Obama.

The news media may have a lot of sympathy for the president, but they don’t have it for the bureaucrats. Look at the coverage of the VA scandal and you can see the enormous gap between media affection for Obama and willingness to be very tough with his subordinates.

5. Develop new solutions for new coalitions and constituencies. FDA reform, for example, could appeal to virtually every person concerned with finding cures for diseases. Fighting to allow Uber to serve its customers attracts an amazing number of young people.

A new veterans service system that put veterans in charge of their health and gave them a smartphone solution that made them (rather than the bureaucracy) the key player in their care could attract a lot of veterans.

The opportunities are endless. In many cases the new solutions threaten the old order (often unionized bureaucrats and their lobbyists) and many Democrats will simply not be allowed to be for a better future because of their allies (take the Keystone pipeline as an example).

6. As issues and solutions develop, turn them into bills in the House and amendments in the Senate and begin peppering Democrats with difficult choices.

They can be in favor of their folks back home and of a better future, or they can side with Obama and a poorer, less desirable future for the American people.

This new strategy could meet the passionate desire of our base for a fighting party and could erode the Obama administration and set the stage for a catastrophic Democratic defeat in 2016.

There is a lot of operational detail to develop about this new third strategy but it is clearly more promising than the strategies of suicidal defeat or passive conflict avoidance.

Your Friend,

Newt

======================================================

.

bkmk

Pushing amnesty is not going to unite the party.

What’s the definition of insanity, again....?

link does not work.

Well, it was working yesterday.

Here’s the same story from WWLP’s website (NBC affiliate for Springfield MA).

So to hijack a thread to serve your own means is okay with you.

BTW - post that picture of Newt sitting with Nazi Pelosy to remind everyone who he really is.

Your posts go unread and I for one find you very rude to hijack another topic to serve your own vain interests, and it is very Newt of you.

My guess is your are not even a conservative but a democrat disrupter, one who posts this type of non-sense about someone who is finished in the conservative movement.

.

Nice try ...

.

Please don’t spam all the threads. Thank you.

Jindal and Santorum are pro life. What’s the problem.

Don’t vote for Paul, whatever the case.

I would vote for Newt too.

I’m clear on their pro-life status...the problem is that they are pursuing blacks and hispanics INSTEAD of conservatives and Christians, both who have been sitting out the last few elections.

Well, one must do what one must do. Maybe the next time you think about overtaking someone else’s thread for your own entertainment you will at list modify it some..

But my guess is you won’t, you already think you know more then everyone else.

I would suggest that you do what I did when I researched the FBI’s 12,000 page file on the VVFW, I posted what I found then posted a list of all the links on my home page, that way I could mention it and say, “check out my home page” most of it is still there.

I am waiting for the picture of Newt and Nancy on the couch...

.

Thread title:

GOP presidential hopefuls talk of unifying party

Is Newt Gingrich a "presidential hopeful" ? YES

Has Newt Gingrich written about "party unity" ? YES

Case closed.

I "invited" Newt Gingrich's (very relevant) views to the discusion, just as you could have done for Sarah Palin, Rick Perry, et al.

Alas, I hope that I didn't (accidently) embarrass "your candidate", whether it be Little Ricky Santorum, Willard (Gay Marriage) Romney ...

or even better than that ...

"Google Ron (Rand) Paul !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"
"Google Ron (Rand) Paul !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"
"Google Ron (Rand) Paul !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"
"Google Ron (Rand) Paul !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"
"Google Ron (Rand) Paul !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"

.

Ditto that

Your chart forgot an issue “Sit next to Nancy Pelosi and whine about global warming” - Newt - Y