Gingrich Thread

[Roy5]

I’m rather shocked and deeply disappointed to find so many Catholics back Gingrich. It seems to me that his ‘conversion’ has totally hoodwinked them.

Gingrich is a very clever manipulator, but if nominated he will be defeated. His messy dealing with Congress will come out in greater detail. His two divorces and various infidelities will receive more and more attention, at least by word of mouth. His lobbying for Freddie Mac will make him look like a greedy hypocrite. There will be many other issues, such as some of the wild statements he has made, his huge line of credit with Tiffany's, etc. 

 True, he can fool many people by his pseudo-intellectual talk, but much of its is just talk and it will wear thin. He is gifted with language, but that is insufficient to be a decent president. I find him personally offensive, on top of everything else.

  God give us someone wiser, more humble and more honest than Gingrich. Sad that such a motley crew is running for the GOP nomination to date. Romney and Huntsman may be the best-qualified, but I confess to some reluctance to give the Mormons the added prestige that could come from a Mormon in the White House. I guess this is some form of bias on my part, but that's how I feel.

  If it's Gingrich vs. Obama, what a tough decision. I may go for a third party, but never for Gingrich. He would be an embarrassment as our president.

 

[gilliam]

I went to the webpage and clicked on the link for Global Warming. It said in capital letters: Content not found.

Scroll down the page, it is there. For some reason their anchor doesn’t seem to be there. Webmaster glitch.

 

[louis91766]

I’m rather shocked and deeply disappointed to find so many Catholics back Gingrich. It seems to me that his ‘conversion’ has totally hoodwinked them.

Gingrich is a very clever manipulator, but if nominated he will be defeated. His messy dealing with Congress will come out in greater detail. His two divorces and various infidelities will receive more and more attention, at least by word of mouth. His lobbying for Freddie Mac will make him look like a greedy hypocrite. There will be many other issues, such as some of the wild statements he has made, his huge line of credit with Tiffany's, etc. 

 True, he can fool many people by his pseudo-intellectual talk, but much of its is just talk and it will wear thin. He is gifted with language, but that is insufficient to be a decent president. I find him personally offensive, on top of everything else.

  God give us someone wiser, more humble and more honest than Gingrich. Sad that such a motley crew is running for the GOP nomination to date. Romney and Huntsman may be the best-qualified, but I confess to some reluctance to give the Mormons the added prestige that could come from a Mormon in the White House. I guess this is some form of bias on my part, but that's how I feel.

  If it's Gingrich vs. Obama, what a tough decision. I may go for a third party, but never for Gingrich. He would be an embarrassment as our president.

I see discrimination against Mormons by some Catholics as somewhat similar to discrimination against Catholics by some Protestants.

 

[gilliam]

“Now that our campaign to rebuild the America we love is gaining momentum, those who want to see us fail are on the attack, digging through Newt’s past to try and stop us.
“Newt, Callista and our campaign welcome the opportunity to tell the truth about Newt and set the record straight about Newt’s positions on the issues as well as his record in public life and as a private citizen.
“We’ve set up this page to arm you with answers to the attacks.”

---

“The 68-year-old Georgian told all comers to bring it on.
“‘If I can’t survive a few weeks of the news media, then I definitely can’t survive being the president,” he said. “If we can cheerfully get through this and answer in a way that the American people are satisfied with, then I deserve the nomination.’…
“‘I really see Mitt and I as co-front-runners,’ said Gingrich, adding that the nomination battle is ‘going to come down to Mitt and me.’”

---

“Gingrich may not follow the Bachmann-Perry-Cain trajectory of rapid rise and rapid fall. He is a far more experienced national politician than they. He’s a familiar figure. It’s not as if, like Bachmann, he’s making a favorable first impression that will then be qualified, or, like Perry, that the idea of the candidate will be very different from the reality, or that, like Herman Cain, he seems a breath of fresh air. Voters who have warmed to Gingrich in the last few months could of course still have second thoughts, and his rise may stall and reverse. It would indeed be surprising if he doesn’t now hit some bumps in the road. But he could be formidable…

“And even if Gingrich fades, let’s not assume it’s over. Bachmann and Santorum could still have a run in Iowa. If they continue to trail badly, it’s not out of the question that someone else could still present himself in mid-December to the citizens of Iowa (Hi there, Mike Huckabee! Hello, Sarah Palin!). Or, if Iowa (January 3), New Hampshire (January 10) and South Carolina (January 21) produce fragmented results, and the state of the race is disheartening to Republicans, a late January entry by another candidate isn’t out of the question, either. Couldn’t Jeb Bush or Marco Rubio win the January 31 Florida primary as a write-in candidate in such circumstances?

“With a splintered field in a turbulent time in an Internet age, there are more possible outcomes in today’s politics than are dreamt of in the philosophy of inevitability.”

hat tip

Well, we will know in 2-3 weeks if he has staying power or not.

 

[CMatt25]

A lot of news coming out of the left leaning press on all this Newt is a flip flopper stuff. Not sure why. Something to be afraid of about Newt going against Obama?

Nah not really. My sense is if we on the left were to be afraid of anyone going up against President Obama in a general election, it would be someone more moderate than Gingrich, like a Huntsman or Romney. Changes in positions of Newt or Mitt over the years just makes interesting news for us is all.

 

[CMatt25]

Nah not really. My sense is if we on the left were to be afraid of anyone going up against President Obama in a general election, it would be someone more moderate than Gingrich, like a Huntsman or Romney. Changes in positions of Newt or Mitt over the years just makes interesting news for us is all.

I might add we don’t fear him all that much either due to his history, some of which has been discussed. But the election is still nearly a yr away so time shall tell.

 

[ishii]

I might add we don’t fear him all that much either due to his history, some of which has been discussed. But the election is still nearly a yr away so time shall tell.

I think that many on the right didn’t think a far left liberal like Obama would become president either. But look what happened. The point is that anything can happen. The unemployment rate goes up, the economy stays the same or worse. Enough voters might be willing to entertain a candidate like Gingrich and overlook some of his foibles if they think he will turn things around. I have my doubts - like you I think that Romney would be a stronger candidate (not Huntsman, too boring).

Ishii

 

[Stjudeprayforus]

75% think we are going in the wrong direction.
9.1% unemployment, 15 trillion in debt, gas over $3.30
56% don’t think he deserves re-election.

Obama is one and done.

 

[ishii]

I see discrimination against Mormons by some Catholics as somewhat similar to discrimination against Catholics by some Protestants.

I do too. And don’t forget that in a general election, Romney’s Mormonism will be brought up as an issue - not by Obama, he’ll be above that - but by his surrogates in the media. Its sad that people won’t consider Romney for what he has to offer as a candidate. Oppose him if you disagree with him on the issues, but don’t vote against him because of his religion.

Ishii

 

[ishii]

75% think we are going in the wrong direction.
9.1% unemployment, 15 trillion in debt, gas over $3.30
56% don’t think he deserves re-election.

Obama is one and done.

Let’s hope so. Remember, a year is an eternity in politics. Things could turn around for Obama. The election will be about voting for a known quantity - Obama - or trying something new. Americans are basically conservative in the sense that they don’t like abrubt change in leadership - unless the leadership has been perceived to have failed.

Ishii

 

[CMatt25]

I think that many on the right didn’t think a far left liberal like Obama would become president either. But look what happened. The point is that anything can happen. The unemployment rate goes up, the economy stays the same or worse. Enough voters might be willing to entertain a candidate like Gingrich and overlook some of his foibles if they think he will turn things around. I have my doubts - like you I think that Romney would be a stronger candidate (not Huntsman, too boring).

Ishii

While I would disagree with your description of Obama, it’s all about the Electoral College. And as it pertains to Gingrich, the topic of this thread, whether he could put together the states to win. That’s the case for any of the candidates. I know you don’t think this Ishii. But anyone who thinks for certain Obama is one and done in the Electoral College a yr away with states like OH and FL up for grabs, is missing the big picture.

 

[Semper_Zelare]

realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/nh/new_hampshire_republican_presidential_primary-1581.html

Newt Gingrich has accomplished something that neither Perry or Cain ever did during their surges. He is only 2 points behind Romney in NEW HAMPSHIRE. Romney is expected to win New Hampshire no matter what. And the talk of his challengers’ hopes in the state is always “a good result would to finish around 10% below Romney’s vote”… again, Romney expected to get something like 40% of the vote.

The closest Perry came was 18% to Mitt Romney’s 36% [8/15-8/16]
The closest Cain came was 24% to Mitt Romney’s 39% [10/16]

But, recently released, [here it comes !!! ]

Newt Gingrich 27% to Mitt Romney’s 29%

Out of 30 polls, this is the closest one. Only 2 of those 30 show Romney only single digits above his nearest competitor. Now, he is just 2 points above Gingrich. A feat never achieved by another “not-Romney candidate”.

This is BIG PEOPLE. Now Mitt is actually going to have to work for New Hampshire. He had it in his bag since the candidates were announcing. Well, not anymore!!!

:extrahappy:

 

[ishii]

While I would disagree with your description of Obama, it’s all about the Electoral College. And as it pertains to Gingrich, the topic of this thread, whether he could put together the states to win. That’s the case for any of the candidates. I know you don’t think this Ishii. But anyone who thinks for certain Obama is one and done in the Electoral College a yr away with states like OH and FL up for grabs, is missing the big picture.

Its all about the electoral college, isn’t it, and whether any GOP nominee can put together the votes to reach 270. Like I said, if the conditions worsen, or even stay the same, it doesn’t bode well for the pro-abortion Obama and his supporters.

Ishiii

 

[Monte_RCMS]

Gingrich has the ability to EXPLAIN stuff.

Comes from YEARS of lecturing and writing.

Cain can also explain stuff, BUT … Cain is a trained mathematician … so he needs to think for a minute. [Go find Cain’s video from YEARS ago when he publicly confronted Bill Clinton.]

By comparison, Barack Obama has for decades gotten a free-skating-by. He has had Bill Ayers and others ghost-write for him and has had teleprompters for everything including the shortest of press announcements. Kind of surprising, given his academic background … it’s as if … giving lectures and seminars for all those years didn’t … “stick”.

But Gingrich can deliver a cogent lecturette on almost any subject with zero preparation.

NO IDEA of how much writing Gingrich had actually done … I know he publishes a bunch of history courses … for which he was severely criticized when he was in the House of Representatives … until I purchased several of his “alternative histories” … which require a lot of critical thinking. Those alternative history books he wrote are excellent. They were written with others, but the thinking through the “what if’s” is excellent training for the mind.]

Since “Pearl Harbor Day” is coming up on December 7th, you all might want to consider reading Gingrich’s alternative history of Pearl Harbor. 1941 - 2011 … interesting anniversary …

Pearl Harbor: A Novel of December 8th
Newt Gingrich (Author), William R. Forstchen (Author), Albert S. Hanser (Consultant Editor)
3.8 out of 5 stars See all reviews (102 customer reviews) |

 

[Roselle]

Newt Gingrich – The Rhett Butler of the GOP?

From the article:

In order to defeat Obama in the debates, the GOP nominee MUST be willing to stand at a podium on national television and do the following two things over and over: Tell the truth about the president and force him to run on his record.
It will fall upon the Republican nominee to force Obama to once and for all enlighten us about the many years of his academic life which have been happily redacted by the leftist media; to tell the world who he socialized with and to whom he was drawn ideologically.
The nominee must make Obama run against the NOMINEE and not congress, banks and so many fatcats. The nominee must use words like redistribution, apologist, transparency, mandate, fast, furious, socialism, division and class warfare. The nominee must make the president refute these words with facts not rhetoric. The nominee will have to chant “jobs-jobs-jobs” like a eastern chant, and remind people of the president’s description of middle America as “clingers.”
This strategy will no doubt bring a chorus of name-calling and cries of racism from the leftist megaphone which is the mainstream media. The nominee will have to be willing to withstand the name calling, personal attacks and hate which will blow in from the left like a liberal typhoon.
Newt could do all of that, because he’s smart enough, he debates better than any republican on the planet and it appears he cares enough about America to not give a damn.

Read more: foxnews.com/opinion/2011/11/19/is-newt-gingrich-gops-rhett-butler/#ixzz1e9ouQHzh

 

[mary_bobo]

While I would disagree with your description of Obama, it’s all about the Electoral College. And as it pertains to Gingrich, the topic of this thread, whether he could put together the states to win. That’s the case for any of the candidates. I know you don’t think this Ishii. But anyone who thinks for certain Obama is one and done in the Electoral College a yr away with states like OH and FL up for grabs, is missing the big picture.

I think Obama will be a strong candidate with much money behind him. And I don’t have much faith in the electorate that elected him in the first place. If people would only have a passing interest in the goings on in this country, he would be out. I have no quarrel with those who are more liberal than I, but I have great misgivings in the way Obama is taking this country.

 

[gilliam]

Newt Gingrich – The Rhett Butler of the GOP?

From the article:

Read more: foxnews.com/opinion/2011/11/19/is-newt-gingrich-gops-rhett-butler/#ixzz1e9ouQHzh

I disagree with the article. This election will be all about what kind of a job Obama has done so far and if we want him to keep his job.

 

[Monte_RCMS]

An era that began around 1790, although I agree that likability is somewhat more important today than in the past.

Probably not true.

Politicians vilified one another and were vilified by the press.

By contrast, people in politics today seem to be following tea and crumpets rules.

And the news media today practically give liberals a free pass.

For an interesting take on George Washington, read “George Washington’s Expense Account”.

George Washington’s Expense Account [Paperback]
George Washington (Author), Marvin Kitman (Author)

Consolidated reviews by readers:

Marvin Kitman has done a masterful job of giving us a different outlook on the Revolutionary War. When George Washington was made General of the Armies, congress offered him a salary but Washington nobly declined and instead requested that they only pay his expenses. The actual journal of his expenses are included in this book and then many journal entries are humorously interrupted by Kitman. Needless to say at war’s end, the country would have been better off paying Washington a salary. Congress didn’t make the same mistake when Washington became president and made the same offer. This book is easy and light reading and shows how ,in Kitman’s words, George Washington became the father of the American expense account.

Was George Washington first in war; first in peace; and first in discovering the joys of an unlimited expense account? Hint: Generals earned $166 per month. At the end of 8 years of war George Washington presented an expense account of $499,261.51. That was when a dollar was a continental. Washington included interest for money he loaned himself and depreciation. He later offered to work only for expenses as president and got a salary in stead.

Did anyone ever hear the term “Worthless as a Continental”. It refers to the Continental Dollar, which was, at that time, so inflated it was practically worthless. What may have sounded like a lavish feast would have cost unbelievable amounts of this worthless currency. If they had McDonald’s back then, a Big Mac probably would have cost at least a $100.00. A horse cost thousands of dollars. Many merchants wouldn’t even except it. You needed bushel baskets full of the stuff to buy anything of importance. When Washington submitted his expense account to Congress, the problem still existed. It wasn’t until Washington was President and Alexander Hamilton fixed this problem that the dollar was worth anything.

The American Revolution lasted eight years, the equivalent of two presidential terms! Given the value of the Continental, using it for that length of time would definitely create one hell of a bill. I’m just surprised the expense account wasn’t bigger.

The author must be one of those “Deconstructionists” that like to paint all of American History as a cynical lie.

This is recommended reading to those who revel in anti-American mythology and half truths.

 

[gilliam]

Fred Barnes, who knows of what he speaks, and about this time predicted McCain would be the nominee last time, makes case for Newt. weeklystandard.com/print/articles/history-newt_609219.html

If 2012 were an ordinary election year, Gingrich would be doomed by his gaffes, three marriages, and fleeting alliances with Hillary Clinton on health care and Nancy Pelosi on global warming. But 2012 is different. Republicans are fixated on defeating President Obama. They’re obsessed. They think about little else. And if that means choosing a candidate with a lurid past and a penchant for self-destruction to beat Obama, Republicans are likely to swallow hard and nominate Gingrich.

In their hearts, Republicans have always wanted a candidate who is bold and tough, and Gingrich is. They’re not sure about Mitt Romney, who is cautious, conventional, and sounds more conciliatory than Gingrich. There’s a reason Romney’s support has been stuck for months at roughly a quarter of the Republican electorate. His blandness explains it. Gingrich is anything but bland.

To rally behind Gingrich, Republicans wouldn’t have to forgive his past sins, just treat them as irrelevant. They already talk about how sweet it would be to see Gingrich crush Obama in presidential debates. They don’t see Romney that way.

Know who else saw the Newt thing coming? Novak. Days after '08 “debacle,” he writes:

In serious conversations among Republicans since their election debacle Tuesday, what name is mentioned most often as the Moses, or Reagan, who could lead them out of the wilderness before 40 years?

To the consternation of many Republicans, it is none other than Newt Gingrich, the former speaker of the House.

voices.washingtonpost.com/postpartisan/2008/11/newt_in_2012.html

 

[Roy5]

** In a campaign against Obama, Gingrich will be torn to pieces. Why?**

**He has flip-lopped **on a whole range of issues, undermining his integrity and stability.

** He was basically rejected as their leader in the House** by fellow Republicans who tired of his arrogance and pseudo-intellectualism. He doesn’t impress those who really know history, despite his pretensions.

As I recall (and I forget the details) **he was fined** - what was it, $300,000 - for some unethical behavior re something he wrote?

** He made millions as a lobbyist** once he left Congress, including nearly $2 working on behalf of Freddie Mac. He claims (typical Newt) that he was somehow employed as their historian, but this will rebutted by the facts, exposing Newt again as a persistent and money-hungry fibber.

** He has that $500,000 credit line at Tiffany's**, which will help undercut his popularity, certainly among those on the bottom of the ladder.

** He is arrogant, a know-it-all, something of a motor-mouth**, who can come up with some applause-producing one-liners, but probably will blow it by losing his cool during one or more of the debates.

** Most important, but perhaps less publicized, his personal life has been a mess, **including his two divorces, his affairs, and his mistreatment of earlier spouses. The woman vote will be heavily impacted by this. His choice of a woman 20 years his junior as his third wife will even alienate some as well.

** The strongest GOP candidate probably is Mitt**, unless someone else accepts a draft -maybe Christie, possibly Daniels. Trump would be blown away as a blowhard, Huckabee is a decent man but probably would alienate many because of his strong religiosity.

 **Other stinging indictments of Gingrich will emerge.**

  **Time will tell**. Obama could beat any of them - though the reverse could happen, also, depending upon what happens nationally and internationally during the next 12 months.

** God bless America.**