Posted on 11/23/2006 6:36:57 PM PST by no dems
Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich is telling associates that he’s launching a major new grass-roots movement to recapture the soul of the Republican Party, and quite possibly the White House.
Gingrich says that the effort will be much larger than his founding of GOPAC and his creation of the Contract with America.
The Georgia Republican is spearheading a program called "American Solutions for Winning the Future” in an effort to revitalize the GOP with Ronald Reagan conservatism.
This is the third time Gingrich has led a drive to steer the Republican Party toward traditional conservative values. In 1986, Gingrich took the chair of the Republican political action committee GOPAC and transformed it into an effective tool for electing conservative candidates. The stated theme of GOPAC was "a conservative opportunity society replacing the liberal welfare state.”
GOPAC was a key element in Gingrich’s rise to the leadership of the Republican caucus in Congress.
Then in 1994, as House Minority Leader, Gingrich was a co-author of the Contract with America, a conservative political platform that helped the GOP gain 54 seats in the House and end 40 years of Democratic majorities there.
Gingrich’s new program echoes the title of his 2005 book, "Winning the Future: A 21st Century Contract with America.”
Sources close to the former speaker say Gingrich believes the Republican Party has once again lost its way, and needs to refocus its agenda with an eye toward regaining Congress in 2008.
Stepping back into the political spotlight could help Gingrich’s presidential aspirations as well.
He recently told an interviewer that he won’t decide whether to seek the White House in 2008 until September of 2007.
But insiders predict Gingrich could throw his hat into the ring if a true Reagan conservative doesn’t emerge as a likely GOP candidate.
For the time being, he’s playing his cards close to the vest. "I am not ‘running’ for president, I am seeking to create a movement to win the future by offering a series of solutions so compelling that if the American people say I have to be president, it will happen,” he tells Fortune magazine.
Gingrich said he plans to build grass-roots support for the health care, national security, and energy independence ideas he has been promoting for the past six years.
Newt would be a GREAT President from a policy standpoint.
However, he has neither the charisma nor the moral character to run and win.
Which brings up another point. The GOP base needs to be congenial and civil in their discssions. I imagine a lot of the ugly threads on this site and others - turned people off.
He might be running for Rove's spot.
''''''''''''''''''''''''
Or Cheney's
IMO the candidates in the GOP that lost ran pretty lackluster campaigns -- or even stupid campaigns... look at Allen and Mackaka and how he handled it.
The fact remains the Dems outsmarted our guys because our side got cocky from power and yes, they ignored us. I think they are still ignorning us.
Case in point: Tony's comments the day after the election that now they could pass comprehensive immigration reform... to me that was an in your face to the people who have unabashedly supported our President for the past six years.
I deeply regret because it elected Clinton in the end and hope everyone will stop and think long and hard about in '08 before they try to make a protest vote.
Do you think we could have taken the House back and gotten real welfare reform if '41 had won?
Do we really want another womanizer in the White House? No. Let Newt take some role as an advisor to the Republican Party. Are there no other conservatives in the Republican Party? If not, then the party is in big trouble.
Right. Times change. But people don't. We are the same as our forebears 3000 years ago, (read Proverbs lately?) and many of us much worse. The wisdom of the ancients got us to where we are today. Not bad for staying power. The fault has not been in our lack of "new ideas" but in our infidelity to the enduring truths of the human condition and the limits of what a "government" can do.
Exactly.
No, I don't. Actually I'm not so certain this country benefits when you have a GOP or Dem President and a Congress and Senate of the same party; there needs to be checks and balances and without it we see what happens.
Newt would be a GREAT President from a policy standpoint. However, he has neither the charisma nor the moral character to run and win.You can win without charisma. But you can't win as a Republican with a moral character problem.
I agree with you about Newt's policies.
The MSM did what it could to make things look worse - but Iraq is a big mess - that's true - not just liberal media. Corruption is real and awful. The GOP Congress stunk. That's true - not just a liberal media portrayal. And the public did not/does not want to continue the direction the GOP was taking us. That's also true.
Yes, he did, including running himself out of Congress.
Also parts of the Contract were not actually laws being passed, but policy changes in the way we were governed
Yes, it was a mixture of both. But most of the acts listed in the contract never got passed.
Or, perhaps you could un-ass yourself, go get his new book and read it.
Newt has a lot of charisma, maybe just not for you. I don't trash candidates I don't like. I just think it hurst conservatism in general. Rather, I would like to see the issues debated. Point of fact, Newt is one of the best communicators out there. He doesn't come across like typical politicans. I'd give him the opportunity to take his case to the public and see where it goes.
Yes, AND before the election. As long as I have been here - there have been ugly fights - people who have no idea how or even why it is right to be civil. I think if people read here (lurking) they would be turned off.
Case in point: Tony's comments the day after the election that now they could pass comprehensive immigration reform... to me that was an in your face to the people who have unabashedly supported our President for the past six years.
Yes, that is a good point. The people want their leaders to represent them not rule them. It would be wise for the GOP at all levels to start listening and trying to understand "the people" and what we want from government - including securing the borders and reducing the size and scope of government. But there is also Iraq, Afghanistan, Iran - energy, health care, corporate welfare, etc
Or, perhaps you could un-ass yourself, go get his new book and read it.
Not true. That is why we no longer have slavery, we no longer consider women as property and women vote. Times change and people change.
There are enduring truths - I agree. Our heritiage is worth preserving - but there is also the future - where we are going - and the challenges of the times we live in. For instance - what do we do about energy independence? What about the price of health care? How do we solve social security...etc None of those things were relevant at the time of our founding.
Actually I'm not so certain this country benefits when you have a GOP or Dem President and a Congress and Senate of the same party;
I believe a conservative GOP President and a GOP Congress might work. This is just theory though since it hasn't happened in at least a hundred years.
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.