Posted on 11/18/2011 3:54:43 PM PST by jageorge72
Newt Gingrich's stumble out of the campaign gate -- causing him to lose his top advisors to Rick Perry -- might well be the best thing that has ever happened to his political career. That, along with his debate performances and a handful of other circumstances, explains why the former speaker of the House is now surging in the polls and why it is likely to continue.
And yes -- those are the words of one who has written Newt off for good on more than one occasion. And for what surely seemed like good reasons.
But those reasons seem long past now, as the former speaker has proven himself a far superior advocate to anyone else running of what it is that animates us on the conservative side. And it is this ability -- combined with our craving for someone who has this ability in light of the inarticulate Bush-McCain years -- that has convinced many to take a second, third, fourth, or fifth look at a man many of us had given up on. Yes, we know that Newt has not always acted like a conservative, and yes, he tends toward being an incessant government tinkerer. Yes, some of those marital issues are troubling, as was NY-23 and the David Gregory/Paul Ryan thing and most of all...the Pelosi global warming thing. Yes, we get all that.
Yet, even so, the daydream of Gingrich debating Obama on a stage bigger than merely the presidential contest is something more and more Tea Party folks and others are publicly fessin' up to sharing. Admit it: you were giving Newt a second look long before you dared say so out loud or post it on a message board.
(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...
Exactly.
This is why I've also been arguing that it's not only unnecessary, but myopic, to totally destroy our bench, particularly Cain.
People seem worried that if Newt stumbles, "we get Romney." But all that means is let's do something to prevent that, such as, for one, doing what we can to keep another not-Romney candidate viable.
Yep.
Then comes the name-calling and vulgar "suggestions" that totally displace rational evaluation of the facts and substantive debate.
From what I see, it comes from not knowing how to debate and being unwilling to learn.
As soon as a disagreement is reached, especially if there is no way to reasonably dispute the argument counter one's point, some people simply launch into a sudden tizzy of hurling personal insult and vulgar "why don't you . . ." tirades. (Check my recent posting history for examples, lol.) It's just weird.
In my view, it appears to come from feeling highly put upon by someone disagreeing with you. And being unwilling to accept that debate can, and should occasionally, lead one to a new conclusion. Moreover, that it's okay to simply say, even in the face of strong counter-arguments, "I still disagree." After all, most of what we are discussing is a matter of opinion!
Yet instead of handling disagreement that way, some people appear to feel emotionally cornered and this leads them to make really embarrassing emotional responses that have nothing to do with the substantive issues being debated.
Romney will not be there in Iowa, which is also quite subliminal that he does not hold much regard for flyover country. Newt has been a complete opposite in Iowa and has established a headquarters there since the beginning of the year. He has gone door to door and face to face there for months.
I predict that Newt will solidify his lead into the solid 30% range from here on out. If there is an increase in viewers for this debate, the indication will be that they are watching to see Newt perform. And we all know how likely that will turn out. He has become MR. Newt, rock solid, razor sharp, Media dragon killer, Gingrich.
P.S. I disagree. I still think this is a big part of the problem!
It's really a combination of what I said and what you said in your last post:
There are some people who think since "no one's perfect, I vehemently hate anyone who points out the imperfections in my candidate/conclusions, etc."
I do agree that people are going to step back a little and reassess their warming up to Newt.
What the outcome will be, we’ll see.
No party organization is monolithic in its thinking. And what Dem in their right mind would “want” Newt to run in the abstract?
(BTW, how old are these Dem operatives you talked to? I ask because I think it’s very telling if they did or did not live (and pay attention) through the Clinton years.)
But politics is about pragmatism and, given their choices, Newt provides the Dems with a lot of tactical advantages.
As for Dems voting for Newt, what’s your evidence for that?
P.S. Is this a good think, that Dems would vote for Newt?
I was talking about the Libs’ objective reality, not their spin. Who bases an analysis on their spin?
In fact, you proved my point. Of course the LSM will continue to say Obama is a great speechmaker/debater/all around deity. But they know he isn’t.
Their actual (non-public spin) expectations are very low. Therefore, they are not going to be disappointed if Obama crashes or gets crushed in the debates. They are just going to carry on saying he’s the greatest and vote for him anyway. And so will his base.
The point was about whether the presidential debates will change any votes and, in my view, they certainly will not. For one thing, for reasons you pointed out: the LSM will spin whatever Obama does as wonderful.
But Hell’s Bells, the LSM/Dem expectations of Obama are so low right now, I doubt they would even run the guy if they could get out of it politically.
If the Dem establishment could tell Obama he “wants to spend more time with his family after his first term” without antagonizing the black vote, Obama would be out of the race already.
Here we go again.
With the current economy, record deficit spending and World economic collapse looming. (Not to mention Iran about to try out their Nuclear muscles.)
We can scarcely afford another trainee for the White House.
I have talked to a lot of politically savvy people lately, some of us who campaigned for Reagan. We are all well aware of the current batch in Washington in the GOP. And we all agree on one thing. We know Newt’s past like the back of our hand. But we also know that he is the one who holds the best chance of getting us out of this mess through his incredible level of experience, but more importantly his ability to analyze how to go about it. But even a much bigger fact in this is, Gingrich himself clearly understands what is at stake and has devoted the rest of his life to doing something about it.
Here is a genuine Consultant of Government who has a very successful track record on how to solve the kind of problems we have ahead of us. There is no argument about it. It is simply a fact. We cannot afford to take chances any longer. We have only once chance left to fix this. We either get it right this time, or it’s all over.
Cain has no clue where to even start and if some of you believe he will surround himself with people who will do so, is not only ignorant it is dangerous.
No, I wouldn’t say I don’t agree at all that Newt will follow through with conservative policies.
My discussion has been based around two views:
(1) It could be a big risk putting Gingrich in the White House.
(NOT, of course, in any way, shape or form a worse risk than having four more years of Obama. I’ve said from the beginning I would vote for Newt in the general, maybe in the primaries. And I was actually pushing for him as VP, so as to get the Gingrich benefits without the Gingrich risks.)
(2) Because of Newt’s extremely rocky relationship with conservatives, as well as his documented tendency to tick them off at the most opportune moment, even if he’s surging in the polls, tactically we should do what we can to keep a viable alternative candidate in case Newt stumbles (as he has so often in the past).
IOW, in my view, at least at this point, it’s short-sighted to argue, as some have, “it’s Newt or nobody! We have no other choice!”
You are focused on Gingrich’s platform, so to speak. I am focused on whether he’s going to be disciplined in pursuing his platform, rather than going off on bipartisanship boondoggles as he has so often in the past.
BTW, what do you think about Newt telling Iowans last week that his first act as President would be to reach out to Democrats?
You must not think much of your own choice of candidates as a debater.
That's the only reason you're saying that.
Thanks for the free psychoanlysis!
Let's see. I guess, based on your reasoning, I could say that you think the debates matter, and matter a LOT, because you think your choice of candidate is a real swell debater. That's gotta be the only reason you're saying that.
(BTW, please ensure you understand that I have been addressing ONLY the presidential debates and ONLY in this cycle.)
And no, I am not overlooking the independents. As I posted originally, I think this president is so polarizing that even the mushy middle has already formed an opinion as to whether or not they want Obama for four more years.
That said, Obama's support among independents is already only at 30%.
I don't see that changing (except, maybe, to go lower) between now and the debates. And I surely do not see anything that could possibly happen in the debates that would send independents running back into Obama's arms in significant numbers.
Evidence for that? I have a family member who lives in a retirement community in California. She’s been a staunch Democrat (not liberal) for years. She didn’t even vote for Reagan (still breaks my heart). At this point, she’s leaning heavy for Gingrich & says many of her friends in the community are as well.
They can’t stand Obama even though they voted for him last time around. They think Newt is the only mature one w/ enough experience to get the job done.
In my travels, I hear this same sentiment often.
As far as tactical advantages, the Dem.s would have various tactical advantages w/ any of the candidates. The question is who can overcome those tactical advantages the best & win? As I stated in the previous post, who can not only win, but have the best chance at having the party unify behind their conservative message? Who would have the best coat tails?
I believe it’s Newt.
Yes, I think it would not only be great, but important for Dem.’s (not liberals) to vote for Gingrich. Remember the Reagan Democrats? Think that was a good thing?
Opinions without sourced evidence are as useless as teets on a boar hog. If all you want to do is try and assassinate Newt’s character, at least be honest that you are not versed on what the Contract states.
[BTW, what do you think about Newt telling Iowans last week that his first act as President would be to reach out to Democrats?]
Reagan did the same thing. It’s how he accomplished much of what his agenda required. Reaching out has nothing to do with complying with or caving into. Even though Reagan also did some of that himself.
One thing for sure is, this is not the same Newt Gingrich we all were so frustrated with in the past. He has addressed that issue recently and vowed to change it. He is well aware of how the base viewed John McCain. I don’t think we have to worry about that from Newt.
I really don’t follow you.
You agree that they are calling him the greatest public speaker since the Sermon on the Mount, and that he’s the most intelligent human since Newton... but somehow they will be able to set his debate expectations as low?
Ok. Whatever.
We just have to agree to disagree on this one.
That's ridiculous. Perry went from 35% to 6% precisely because of the debates
Sigh.
I clearly said "presidential debates."
Don't conflate the presidential debates with the debates in the primaries. They are two completely different animals.
Yes, when you have a large field in the primaries, including newcomers, the primary debates can change votes.
But by the time we get to the presidential debates, the GOP nominee has been, well, NOMINATED.
That means that a whole bunch of Republicans have already voted for him in the primaries. The GOP voters already know their nominee's strengths and weaknesses, and many have committed to vote for him in the general regardless of how he does in the presidential debates.
There's no psychological quid pro quo here (as per your previous post). Even in the primaries, we have seen people who sincerely thought Rick Perry was the best candidate, and they were more than willing to support him despite his lack of debating skills.
The point is the presidential debates feature two NOMINEES whose supporters, many of whom have already voted for the nominee in the primaries, will not be swayed in large numbers by their debate performance. And I have already addressed why, in my view, the same is likely true for independents.
Just wondering what you think of the idea that Newt’s performance in the primary debates seems, for some, the big motivation for supporting him for president.
think = thing
Sorry.
Okay, just saw this post and it answers my question. Thanks.
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.