Posted on 09/14/2007 8:12:13 AM PDT by jdm
Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, who has been toying with the idea of jumping into the GOP presidential contest, sat down with National Journal's Linda Douglass this week to discuss the 2008 candidate fields, the state of American politics and his own future. Edited excerpts follow. For previous Insider Interviews, click here.
Q: You said fairly recently that the Democrats had a very high likelihood of winning the presidency next year.
Gingrich: I think that the country, after the last couple of years, has a bias in favor of change -- I think probably starting with [Hurricane] Katrina and coming through Baghdad and the whole sense of too much spending. And you sense a lack of enthusiasm in the conservative base, and you sense a stunning level of intensity in the anti-war Left. And so you just look at the dynamics and you have to say the odds are probably 80-20 [in the Democrats' favor].
Q: 80-20?
Gingrich: Yeah. That's my guess. Now, it could change. If you had a [Republican] candidate who could break out and who could say, "Obviously, we need to change pretty dramatically, and the party of trial lawyers, public employee unions, [and] left-wing ideologues probably can't change," and could force Hillary [Rodham Clinton] or Barack Obama or whomever to be the defender of failed bureaucracies, then I think you could see a Republican win next year. But I don't think they can win by passively staying within the framework of where we have been.
Q: Let's talk about the Republicans who are in the race, starting with former Governor Mitt Romney. Is he the kind of visionary you think the country needs?
Gingrich: Look, I think there are three or four possible Republican nominees -- [Rudy] Giuliani, Romney, [Fred] Thompson, [Mike] Huckabee, and, based on his recent re-energizing, [John] McCain. All of them are smart people. None of them have yet broken out and begun to define a fundamentally different future.
Q: You did say at one point that McCain was deeply at odds with the GOP base and that that would affect his chances. You seem to have changed your view somewhat.
Gingrich: He has recognized that the Senate immigration bill that he supported was hopeless. McCain has moved much closer to the Republican base. The Republican base hasn't moved closer to McCain. And on issues of war and on issues of honor and military capability, John McCain has an extraordinary personal story.
Q: Giuliani supports abortion rights and certainly some forms of gun control. Isn't he also deeply at odds with the base?
Gingrich: I think part of the difference was that there are no Giuliani-Kennedy bills. There are no Giuliani-Feingold bills. Giuliani is a New York, moderate Republican. But he hasn't gone out of his way to pick fights with the Republican base.
Q: Fred Thompson's rollout has generally not gotten rave reviews. What do you think of it and of him?
Gingrich: I think that any Republican has to have a core, direct, compelling message of why they would be different than [President] Bush and why they would be different than Clinton. And they have to be able to say it in 30 seconds. And they have to be able to say it so that people in their living room believe it matters to them and their family. None of our candidates have yet found that rhythm.
Q: What aren't the Republicans saying that they should be?
Gingrich: We need very bold, dramatic change, change at every level -- from school board to city council to county commission to state legislatures to the presidency. That's what the Republican Party has to stand for. And, frankly, the Republican Party hasn't stood for that.
Q: You always say that what the country needs is a candidate with big ideas. Is there anyone in either party who has the kind of big ideas that you have been talking about?
Gingrich: [John] Edwards has a lot of big ideas, but they're the wrong ones. The country needs solutions, and we need an ability to come to grips with how much change is involved in getting to those solutions. I'm deeply opposed to launching campaigns on late-night television. I think it just trivializes the whole process.
Q: You are heading an organization called American Solutions for Winning the Future that is going to have workshops at the end of the month that will affect, you've said, your decision about whether to run for president. Why?
Gingrich: I reached the conclusion over the last five or six years that the scale of change we needed was not achievable in the current partisan political process. I set out to create an organization which would hold workshops, develop solutions, reach out to Americans in both parties, outline dramatically different ways of doing things. And then we are trying to set up a dialogue about the scale of change [that] people should expect. There is nobody out there prepared to say, on the Democratic side, "If we don't win in Iraq, here's how big the mess is going to be," with the exception of Joe Lieberman. There is nobody out there on the Republican side who is prepared to say, "You know, we are going to have to do it differently." I mean, "Stay the course" is not a rational option.
Q: What is going to happen at the end of this coming-together?
Gingrich: This is not about 2008. Very large public movements take a while to get off the ground. The only circumstance I can imagine under which [my wife] Callista and I would be faced with a choice about running this year would be if there is a vacuum in October so deep and people began to be so afraid of Senator Clinton winning that you could actually see by the end of October a scale of resources that would let you be genuinely competitive. The odds are, that won't happen. I'm very comfortable with projects that take more than a sprint.
Q: You could imagine circumstances in which you might run for president in 2012?
Gingrich: I'd be the same age in '12 [that] Reagan was when he was elected in 1980. The most tempting thought about running next year is the idea of debating Senator Clinton. That would be fun.
Q: You have been critical of the Bush administration's handling of immigration and the war on terrorism. And you said that Republican candidates need to discuss the failures. Should the candidates be putting distance between themselves and Bush?
Gingrich: I think [French President Nicolas] Sarkozy said it very well when he said of the Chirac administration, "We need a clean break." There is no excuse for not controlling the border. There is no excuse for New Orleans being the mess it is. I think we ought to say these things are not right.
Q: Let's talk about Hillary Clinton. What do you think is her Achilles' heel?
Gingrich: I think the danger she runs is that in attempting to appease the left wing of her party she becomes unacceptable to the majority of Americans once they understand what she said she'd do. She is actually much more centrist than MoveOn.org. She is much tougher on military affairs than [her party's] Left. She is more rational, and I have very great respect for her as a hardworking professional. No Republican should think she is going to be easy to beat. But I have watched her now for a year be gradually pulled to the left. Her husband was too clever to do that.
Q: Do you want to run?
Gingrich: Not necessarily. I want to serve my country. I don't want to run as an act of habit. I have no great interest in going out to campaign. I have every interest in finding a generation of solutions. So if you said to me, would I be willing to serve my country, the answer is yes. But it won't bother me to spend all of next year running workshops and developing a new generation of ideas, and trying to be available for every American, not just Republicans.
I don’t believe for one second there is an 80/20 chance the dems win in 2008
Big fan of Newt’s. He needs to realize he has zero chance of winning. He should just join another campaign as their strategic advisor.
if the # of people on this forum is any indication,
neut’s right.
some nights there are maybe 50 posters and 39 of them are mormons shilling for rombot in their ant piles.
Didn't I read that Newt is considering getting into the race...I guess he figures that he's the one who could "break out."
The man is a media whore...watching him is like watching Geraldo...IMHO.
Fortunately, Thompson has the potential to be that guy, I would be worried about my 80-20 chances if I were a Democrat.
As a political pundit Newt is out of it
He predicted a 25 seat GOP pick up in the house in 98
And don’t tell me about 94
The gun owners and Christian Conservatives came out in droves because of Clinton’s Abortion Policy —Gays in the Military—and Gun Bills
Contract With America, although a great thing, had almost no effect (exit polls showed the vast majority of voters never even heard of it )
An excellent point, which many of those whose heads explode at the thought of a Rudy candidacy can't quite grasp.
i’d be careful what people say about newt around here. fred hasn’t announced his VP yet...
After 40 years in the wilderness, Newt marshaled the energy to bring the House back to the Republicans. Has he had missteps - duh; but how about:
Rudi - Gun Control (not usually a conservative issue)
Mitt - Has held, shall we say multiple positions over the years.
Mike H - Didn’t he raise taxes a few times while Gov.
Fred T - Shall we remember his support for McCain-Feingold?
Listen, if Newt jumps into the race, there will be very necessary debates about change - unless you want FDR’s “unimagined government power” to continue. Be mature enough to realize that ALL of the candidates come with flaws - they are human. At the same time, remember that Newt is one of us.
He’s done a ton for his country and the conservative movement. And before I get my head bashed in about his moral life, I don’t support that anymore than you who might accuse me of overlooking it.
Enough said - Newt is not the enemy
Well, if either the Romulan or Julie-annie are our nominees, Newt will be borne out to be absolutely spot on. I cannot see Rudeee winning but one or two states (N.H. or perhaps Maine) and the Mittwitt just one: Utah. Should either get the nomination, it will go down as the largest Republican defeat in history, eclipsing even LBJ/Goldwarter and FDR/Landon. It really won’t entirely be the fault of Rudee or the Mutt, however; no, most of the blame for the defeat can be placed right squarely where it ought to be: on Duh-pee-eew! There’s a silver lining in the dark clouds however—in 2012, after four years of the Chillderbeaste, national humiliation, widespread recession and social unrest; a libertarian brand of conservatism will come roaring back!
The only way that Hillary can win (with her high negatives) is for the Republicans to SPLIT and DIVIDE the Party.
If you want to SPLIT and DIVIDE the Republican Party WIDE OPEN (while demoralizing the base),,,,
a LIBERAL like Rudy is JUST THE MAN FOR THE JOB!
He’s a fat, spoiled, brainiac. No leadership, just brains.
Well Newt which job in Hillary’s Administration are you applying?
No the blame can be placed squarely on psuedo “Betrayed Conservatives”, like yourself, who spend ALL your time actively working FOR the Democrat party by hysterically trash talking everyone and everything in the GOP day in and day out.
How about you do us a favor? You spend all your time working FOR Democrats here on FR, why don’t you wander over and JOIN them?
Pretty hard to win any battle when 20% of your team spends all it time sniping it OWN side in the back.
Newt doesn't seem to understand why so many Republicans loath John McCain. Yes, he's far more conservative than Rudy, but I could force myself to, grudgingly, vote for Rudy, if he was the nominee. I will never vote for McCain.
Wrong. It not the 1980s. It is childish to be mindlessly loyal to a guy who is busy stabbing the political agenda you CLAIM to care about in the back daily.
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.