The Republican field
Gingrich is continuing to have his day as the front runner. The debate forum is one in which he particularly shines, plus the other candidates have been the subject of relentless media attacks. But Gingrich is such old news that there’s not that much new dirt to be dug up on him.
That will change, of course, if and when he becomes the nominee. Then you can rest assured that all the old offal—both truth and lies—will be excavated and heaped on his not-all-that-telegenic head. And new stuff will either be found or manufactured.
The way I see the Republican field so far is that the bulk of the electorate is uncomfortable with each these candidates for one reason or other. Although the front runners have constantly shifted, none of them has consistently (or even inconsistently) gained the support of more than a third of poll respondents. This reflects not only this uneasiness but also the large number of candidates; if the race were to shake down to two, one would likely emerge more consistently with a majority.
But that’s quite a ways off. In the meantime, if a great many of the candidates stay in the race for a long time, it could skew the results because the votes the weaker candidates hold onto could have gone to a stronger candidate and changed the outcome.
One thing you’ve got to say about Gingrich, though: he’s shown perseverance. His entry into the race was initially greeted with derision, but he’s benefited from his obvious intelligence and the fact that none of the more charismatic Republican candidates decided to enter the fray.
[NOTE: I saw a comedy bit on TV the other day that suggested some slogans for Newt’s campaign. The best one was, “After all, it’s not like you’re marrying him.”
And yes, it’s a lie that Newt served divorce papers on his wife while she was in the hospital for cancer surgery. But the correction has been out there for quite some time, and it’s hardly made a dent in the perception that he did just that. Do you really think the lie won’t be repeated ad nauseam—and successfully—if Gingrich were to become the Republican nominee?]
Newt’s unelectable!
/sarcasm
He need not to be elected. People of such intellect and erudition are more useful as “grey cardinals” behind the scene than as popular leader visible to everybody. As a public figure, he will sure to irritate most of the people, since nothing is more hatefull for majority of humans as intellectual supremacy.
It’s a bit premature to call Newt the front runner. He needs a few more polls before that is a fair assessment.
He has certainly breathed life into a campaign pronounced dead a few months ago. At this point I don’t see a path for Newt, or any of the others, to nomination. While Newt’s numbers are much better he is simply one of several people in the high teens to low twenties.
Until we get through the proportional primaries, and we see who is left at the beginning of the winner take all states, this will still be a muddled field.
Sergey makes an excellent point. I hope that whoever gets the Republican nomination will put the other contenders to good use. I recall reading someone somewhere in the Blogosphere suggesting Sarah Palin as Secretary of the Interior.
The very thought makes me wibble with anticipation and delight. >:-D
We also have to remember that the endorsements of dropouts and of other popular politicians will have an effect down the road.
Newt uses the song “Dancing Queen” for his ring tone. I’m pretty sure that’s a violation of the Constitution. And if it’s not it should be.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O03-Kk9nN7o&feature=player_embedded
Neo, this is more in response to some comments you made in an earleir post. I don’t object to Romney because he’s not a pure enough conservative, I object to Romney because he has taken different sides on almost every issue. It seems to depend on whether he’s running for the Republican Presidential nomination, or Governor of Mass. This is not a person I will ever support, for any reason. His positions are a lot more liberal than I would prefer, but if he had the courage of any conviction, I would support him in the general election. As it stands, I won’t vote for him, work for him, or contribute to him, because he doesn’t believe in anything except getting Mitt elected.
Sunday dinner conversation turned the Republican contenders. My wife and my brother and sister in laws are all moderates. All expressed extreme dislike of Newt mainly for his past marital problems. Fair?? No. But this is how moderates are thinking. My sister in law even said that she dislikes Obama but would vote for him over Gingrich. I sat there, listened, and was fascinated by the comments.
As a conservative, I like Newt. But seeing this microcosm of the middle voters, and the prospect of them going for Obama just due to their dislike of Newt gives me second and third thoughts. It seems once again I may have to hold my nose and next November vote for Romney. the alternative is too painful to contemplate
Does anyone remember why Newt resigned as Speaker of th House?
The answer is manifold but, he was demonized by the MSM and dems during the government shut down. He was also demonized because he supported the impeachment of Clinton. However, he finally resigned and left Congress because his own caucus believed he was too big a liability. From wiki:
“Republicans lost five seats in the House in the 1998 midterm elections–the worst performance in 64 years for a party that didn’t hold the presidency. Polls showed that Gingrich and the Republican Party’s attempt to remove President Clinton from office was widely unpopular among Americans.[71] Gingrich suffered much of the blame for the election loss. Facing another rebellion in the Republican caucus, he announced on November 6, 1998 that he would not only stand down as Speaker, but would leave the House as well. Commenting on his departure, Gingrich said, “I’m willing to lead but I’m not willing to preside over people who are cannibals. My only fear would be that if I tried to stay, it would just overshadow whoever my successor is.” ”
All of that would be dredged up and used against him. As good as he is in the debates and as much as I like many of his ideas, his appeal beyond the core of the Republican party is limited. Most independents will not or cannot understand how brilliant he is. You have to be a conservative to grasp that. He is an even easier target for the MSM and dems than Palin. If he is the candidate, by election day the independents will probably see him as a cross between Scrooge and Fagin. Unless he has a media reaction team that can counter every lie, innuendo, and mislaid fact that will be a constant barrage from the MSM, he will not stand much chance. My only optimism about his candidacy would be that, given enough money, a top-notch campaign team, and a continuing moribund economy he could sqeek out a win. If he is the nominee, I will support and vote for him.
I believe he would be terrific as SECDEF or SECSTATE. I would hope he would be willing to serve in such a post. (It would require a big cut in pay.) His knowledge and abilities would be a huge plus for a Republican administration.
Tom: and so it seems that apparently you prefer Obama.
I must say I do not understand this sort of reasoning. Anything you say about Romney could be said about Obama tenfold (although perhaps Obama has the courage of his convictions? I’m not even sure of that.)
Make no mistake about it: if Romney is the nominee, a refusal to vote for him is a vote for Obama.
Neo, if we’re gonna have a scallywag, let it be a Democratic scallywag. A Republican scallywag would only damage the party. Have you not seen what Obama has done to the Democrats? I’m not voting for that douche bag, and as long as you guys keep telling the Republican leadership that you will vote for people like Romney, you will continue to get people like Romney. I can easily see Romney getting in office, and sliding to the left, bending to the will of the Democrats and the media, because he can’t articulate what he believes, because he only believes in getting Mitt elected.
JJ, I once thought as you do. What changed my mind is this simple fact. All of these candidates have major issues to overcome. If we have to overcome issues, let’s pick the best guy we have, and let’s go toe to toe.
Reagan couldn’t survive in this atrocious media environment. Some media troll at Politico or MSNBC would invent a smear about him. We have to accept a Republican candidate with skeletons in his/her closet, real or otherwise. Let’s choose someone agile and nimble enough in dealing with the inevitable October surprise. Whoever it may be, it doesn’t seem to be Cain or Perry.
Yeah, don’t forget, they INVENTED one for Bush II.
Tom,
Newt has also made his share of flip flops. Cain is way over his head (see the videos at NRO’s Corner). Perry probably won’t recover from his first debates. Who is the best out of this bunch?
Obama may determine the Supreme Court direction for decades. He will continue to screw up foreign affairs. He won’t have to worry about re-election so he can follow his lefty fans on all sorts of things like the Keystone pipeline. And he will continue to award contracts to his favorite rich guys like the Solyndra folks–not because he will need the money for another campaign but because he and Michelle have developed a taste for Martha’s Vineyard and wagyu beef. He has to go.
expat, can you give me some examples of Newt flip flops?
Pingback:Last Men Standing?
Newt did one flip-flop when he accused Congressman Ryan of “rigtht wing social engineering” for his Medicare reform plan. Ryan’s reform proposal was brilliant and very similar to Newt’s Medicare part D bill for drugs. I’m not sure why he turned on Ryan.
But the main thing that Newt will have is his problem with too many wives. He had affairs with two of them while still married to the previous wife. He left the Baptist church to convert to Roman Catholicism because wife no. 3 is RC and he could get a religious annulment from the Catholic hierarchy. This is something that will not sit well with Catholics or Evangelicals. Ironically, Romney, the Morman, is the husband of one wife even though his religion once allowed polygamy. Newt is merely a serial polygmist and a liar. He’s a brilliant man but he just doesn’t sit well with those of us who still think character counts.
Tom: so while you’re playing games to protect the integrity of the Republican Party, you let the country go down the drain.
Doesn’t work for me.
I hate premature elections. I hate polls. I hate poll takers and polls that serve as news headlines. Endless ‘debates’ if you can call them that. I will just pull the R lever as I do every year there’s an election and go home, not watch television or listen to the radio or get on the internet. I will play Chopin’s Funeral March on that night.
Tom,
Climate change, health care mandate. The latter was a part of the general exploration by conservatives, including Heritage Foundation, to get rid of free riders and cut health care costs. That is what Mitt used to moderate Mass. Dems health care wishes for an even more socialized system. It was an effort to maintain some competition between private insurers and the gov’t.
The climate change appearance by Newt with Pelosi was an unforced error. He had no constituents at the time, so he was just trying to profile himself as forward thinking. Romney most likely was feeling lots of pressure from constituents and had to respond. I don’t know whether his closed coal plant was a old and dirty or whether it just emitted too much CO2. Given the info we now have on the quality of IPCC’s work, I don’t think any Republican will now be willing to sacrifice the economy for climate change. There is also increasing evidence that global cap and trade is corruption begging to happen and that alternate energy should be a topic of research, not a vehicle for subsidizing peoples’ dreams.
We shouldn’t pretend that women’s rights, gay rights, the environment, racism, and the social net haven’t, to a greater or lesser extent, been real problems in the past. The problem is that the advocacy industry has to be put back in its cage. Even the founder of Greenpeace has said as much. In a loud head-on fight, the left has let itself be portrayed as heartless science denying Neanderthals. They would be wise to emphasize that real science is constantly questioning and is capable of revising previous mistaken positions. It is the Dems who are the real flat earthers.
BTW, WSJ had a video the other day about a new mega-analysis finding that sodium doesn’t necessarily cause heart disease and, in fact, may prevent it in some populations. So the real conservative position should be not to jump on the latest bandwagon or to pull a Nanny Bloomberg when a new danger is identified. It should be good old healthy skepticism. I would love to see one of our candidates raise this topic and convince the public that doomsday predictions should be approached rationally, not emotionally, morally, or as status indicators.
Sorrry. the left has portrayed conservatives as heartless… Conservatives have allowed them to do it and would now be wise…
Anybody else see Gingrich’s open endorsement of covert action to advance foreign policy as a major blunder?
We expect governments to use spies and spooks. But they’re most effective when we never admit they exist, and never admit they are in the toolkit.
Didn’t Newt just screw over both our spies and our standing with marginal allies? Even if we are not the agents who blow up the next tin pot dictator of Crapistan, his statements will stand as evidence that the U.S. is pulling all the strings.
Newt was on FNC this morning and Greta asked how he would counter the attacks about his personal life.
He said, paraphrasing, that he had many things to regret, and for which he had sought forgiveness. He did say that his current marriage is strong and that he has a close relationship with both daughters and their families. He went on to say that he trusted the American people to recognize, and forgive, human frailty. Pretty statesman like answer.
There is a ways to go yet, and I would not dare predict the twists and turns. Of one thing I am confident, Obama would not like to debate Newt Gingrich. I am also reasonably sure that the Dems in Congress would not like to deal with President Newt; and the media would constantly have their knickers in a wad over President Newt.
Most of the Third world countries religiously believe that US is pulling all the strings. Among Arabs, Persians and other Central Asian tribes fear of American spies is outright paranoia. So hardly anybody will percieve Newt’s remarks as anything but stating the obvious.
You’re right Oldflyer, Newt did give a heartfelt apology, again. It just doesn’t sound so great the 2nd or third time around. Let’s face it, Newt has a zipper problem and the liberal media would have a fun time bringing up his lying and infidllity again and again and…
He also apologized to Ryan for his stupid comment. BTW, Paul Ryan is as good a debater as Newt. Maybe Newt is jealous of him.
Newt would make a great cabinet officer, but not a president. I can forgive him many times, but I just can’t trust him.
Neo, I understand you feeling that way, but please don’t forget that I held my nose and voted for Bush I, I held my nose and voted for Bob Dole, I did not vote for Bush II (ONLY because there was no question he would win Colorado, but had it even been close I would have cast my vote for Bush), I did in fact vote for Bush II for his second term, and I held my nose and voted for John McCain. I’m sorry, I’m not doing it again for Romney.
Whoever the Republicans nominate has to be elected. RINO or not. After 2008, we not only got Obama for at most 8 years, but if they stay healthy we’re stuck with Kagan and Sotomayor on the Supreme Court trying to pull the country leftward for the next 40 years.
Scalia and Kennedy are 75. Even if they stay healthy, it’s hard to imagine that will serve for more than 3 additional presidential election cycles.
If we elect a Republican president in 2012, maybe they’ll decide to retire between 2012-2016 so that a couple of 35-40 year old conservative justices can be nominated to help provide a counterbalance to Kagan and Sotomayor for the next 40 years.
Tom: I really don’t care how many times you held your nose and voted for someone. I strongly urge you to do it again. It is that important.
Just what Scott says above about the Supreme Court should be enough—and whomever Romney might appoint, he/she is highly highly likely to be better than whomever Obama would appoint. But the Supreme Court is only one of many many issues where there would be differences between Romney and Obama.
I have held my nose and voted for almost every candidate for president I’ve ever voted for, and I would guess I’ve voted far longer than you. So I have no sympathy whatsoever for exhaustion with nose-holding. Remember that the perfect is the enemy of the good—and I would add that the good is the enemy of the lesser of two evils. There is nevertheless a lot to be said for choosing the lesser of two evils; it’s the choice real life often presents us with.
There’s no need to settle for Romney. Five of these candidates are a lesser evil in primary season. I beat my drum: the people will elect whoever we send them.
None is without flaws, fumbles and shortcomings. There is no “perfect”. But there are plenty of “good enoughs”. Now that I have seen them at some depth, I do not understand why people say this is a weak field.
It is light on conventional wisdom, moderates and establishment types. But well stocked with variations on the conservative ideal.
Instead of worrying about holding noses a year from now, celebrate the vigor of the choices before us in a few months.
foxmarks: I was responding to Tom, who said he would not vote for Romney for president. We weren’t talking about the primaries; I was referring to voting for Romney or not, if he were to be the Republican nominee.
Understood. Being on record as preferring Obama to Romney, I see Tom’s perspective and a path that could prevent most of us from having to make an unpleasant choice next November.
To get the right Supremes confirmed, we need the Senate. With the Senate, we can block the wrong Supremes. The common view seems to be that Romney would give us a couple more Kennedys, not a Scalia. Perhaps better than two more Kagans, but nothing inspiring.
The Republican candidates on AGW: All except Perry, Cain, and Bachmann have accepted the “consensus.” However, I’m convinced that all are open to drill, baby, drill because it is absolutely necessary to rejuvenate the economy. Only the Greens and dems who use AGW for political power are against drilling.
The AGW debate is going to last a long time, but it is slowly dawning on most people who have spent any time looking at the issues, that we are going to be using oil and gas as our major transportation fuel for at least another 50 years. With luck/technological breakthroughs that might be shortened by 20 years. But even after we are using methanol, hydrogen, or ??? for transportation, the rest of the world will still need oil. We will have to drill those resources at some point. All of the Republicans understand this. The dems do not.
IMO Tom has an excellent point: Romney will mosey down the Leftist path with a big “Republican” next to his name. That does incalculable damage because it confuses people. We need a principled approach. To continue on the path now set in Washington, only “less so”, IMO, courts disaster. The great and wonderful thing about the current administration is you can see what they are doing and you can see the results and the Leftist methods are rightly getting blamed for the economic destruction.
If you’re not sure whether you could support Gingrich, watch some of his speeches and recent appearances and find out the substance of his campaign proposals.
I highly recommend “MICHIGAN MUST CHANGE OR DIE” from June 2010, which is on YouTube.
Also, his interview at the manufacturing forum held at Vermeer Corporation in Iowa, the Alzheimer’s Annual dinner keynote speech and the interview with Paul Gigot and Joel Klein at The College Board, entitled “The Future of Education in America.”
If Gingrich’s candidacy gains support, it will be because people are responding to what he’s proposing now, not because of who he was or what he was in the past.
He is proposing we use the capabilities that new technology gives us to make government smaller, more efficient, responsive to the people and transparent in spending.
He recognizes that the Left is entrenched in our in our institutions, and that the Left must be defeated AND REPLACED, or they just keep marching Left.
The question is whether enough Americans are fed up with the Leftward drift and are willing to participate and insist on a return to original American principles of limited government.
If you are eager for a return to a smaller federal government, local education, a government dedicated to preserving our freedoms, look at his speeches, do some research, and see for yourself whether you want to support him.
This isn’t about 1997. Most of us didn’t even have cell phones or the internet yet. There was no Neo-Neocon, no InstaPundit, no Power Line, no Althouse or anyone else in alternative media (except the beginnings of talk radio) because there was no blogosphere.
Things are amazingly different. It’s a different world and going to be even a more exciting world with amazing capabilities.
Gingrich has some really interesting proposals about how we can use the new science & technology with the American original principles to create prosperity, bring back manufacturing, streamline needed federal agencies, engage in lifelong learning and more.
The question is whether enough people are interested and willing to do the work.
The most recent polls may be reflecting an upward trend for Gingrich. The fundraising seems to suggest a possibly a significant upward trend.
You’ve got to find out for yourself if the crazy idea of 21st century freedom and self-government just might work. Government of the people, by the people and for the people requires input from the people. It’s up to us to decide.
People, I think the problem is the Tom’s of the world are holding thier nose.
Why hold the nose?
Go in knowing the facts. The facts are you have a clearly better candidate on the Republican side than Obama no matter who it is. Period. Michelle Bachman, Herman Cain, Newt Gingrich.
It is ridiculous to hold your nose.
It’s like people who apologize for America. America has it’s flaws but you don’t need to hold your nose while saying America is a great country.
At least:
1) We can debate about it
2) We have the power to make it better
3) We shed blood to free people and then give people back their country with their natural resources.
There isn’t a debate.
There should be no nose holding.
And Tom says MORE about himself than the GOP candidates to suggest he has to hold his nose.
Bush over Kerry? No debate!
Bush over Gore? No debate!
Wake the hell up! Get some smelling salts and open them nostrils up!
Neo,
When do you predict your site meter will hit 5 million?
Baklava: I guess around a month from now.
Come on, folks, get serious! You don’t get to vote for the ideal candidate. You don’t get to vote for an angel. You get to vote for somebody, no matter who it is, with whom you will disagree on some issues. I might only agree with Romney on 70% of the issues, but that’s a hell of a lot better than with Barry O’, with whom I agree on nothing. That’s not even a tough call.
I’ll be a protest vote for the R in the general (unless Sarah comes along). As stated above, my main concern is the SC. I voted for Bush both terms for 2 reasons – the 2nd Amendment and the Supreme Court. Much of what he did as Pres made me unhappy, but on my 2 top issues, he was pretty good (as compared to the alternative).
There are some advantages to being a ‘single issue’ voter. I don’t need to hold my nose typically – the Rs are usually much better than the Ds in the area of guns, abortion and the SC. While other issues are important as well, I have to draw the line somewhere.
And what if other nations “do something” so that they do what they talked about long ago… using a presidential order to pretend their Lincoln and suspend the constitution temporarily for the crisis?
ie… if you were the enemy of the US, would you want obama to be there more and for the next 4 years?
or would you want someone else, who actually may oppose you, not bow to you, not manipulate so he throws the match to you, doesnt give you billions for you and your chronies, and so on and so forth…
The Suspension Clause of the United States Constitution specifically included the English common law procedure in Article One, Section 9, clause 2, which demands that “The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it.”
On April 27, 1861, the writ of habeas corpus was suspended by President Abraham Lincoln in Maryland during the American Civil War. Lincoln did so in response to riots, local militia actions, and the threat that the border slave state of Maryland would secede from the Union, leaving the nation’s capital, Washington, D.C., surrounded by hostile territory. Lincoln chose to suspend the writ over a proposal to bombard Baltimore, favored by his General-in-Chief Winfield Scott.[9] Lincoln was also motivated by requests by generals to set up military courts to rein in “Copperheads,” or Peace Democrats, and those in the Union who supported the Confederate cause. Congress was not yet in session to consider a suspension of the writs.
The Copperheads were a vocal group of Democrats in the Northern United States (see also Union (American Civil War)) who opposed the American Civil War, wanting an immediate peace settlement with the Confederates.
They comprised the more extreme wing of the “Peace Democrats” and were often informally called “Butternuts” (for the color of the Confederate uniforms). The most famous Copperhead was Ohio’s Clement L. Vallandigham, a Congressman and leader of the Democratic Party. Republican prosecutors accused some leaders of treason in a series of trials in 1864.
the Habeas Corpus Suspension Act, was signed into law March 3, 1863
Lincoln exercised his powers under it in September, suspending habeas corpus throughout the Union in any case involving prisoners of war, spies, traitors, or military personnel,[19] The suspension of habeas corpus remained in effect until Andrew Johnson revoked it on December 1, 1865.
Following the end of the Civil War, numerous groups arose in the South to oppose Reconstruction, including the Ku Klux Klan. In response, Congress passed the Force Acts in 1870—71. One of these, the Civil Rights Act of 1871, permitted the president to suspend habeas corpus if conspiracies against federal authority were so violent that they could not be checked by ordinary means.
and
Immediately following the attack on Pearl Harbor, the governor of Hawaii, Joseph Poindexter, invoked the Hawaiian Organic Act, 31 Stat. 141 (1900), suspended habeas corpus, and declared martial law. Hawaii was governed by Lieutenant Generals Walter Short, Delos Emmons, and Robert C. Richardson, Jr. for the remainder of the war.
and
In 1942, eight German saboteurs, including two U.S. citizens, who had entered the United States were convicted by a secret military court set up by President Franklin Delano Roosevelt. In Ex parte Quirin the U.S. Supreme Court decided that the writ of habeas corpus did not apply, and that the military tribunal had jurisdiction to try the saboteurs, due to their status as unlawful combatants.
and lastly
In January 2007, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales told the Senate Judiciary Committee that in his opinion: “There is no express grant of habeas in the Constitution. There’s a prohibition against taking it away.” He was challenged by Sen. Arlen Specter who asked him to explain how it is possible to prohibit something from being taken away, without first being granted
The martial law concept in the U.S. is closely tied with the right of habeas corpus, which is in essence the right to a hearing on lawful imprisonment, or more broadly, the supervision of law enforcement by the judiciary. The ability to suspend habeas corpus is often equated with martial law
Article 1, Section 9 of the U.S. Constitution states, “The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.”
maybe thats why the people who want to do this keep saying they like the OWS?
In United States law, martial law is limited by several court decisions that were handed down between the American Civil War and World War II. In 1878, Congress passed the Posse Comitatus Act, which forbids military involvement in domestic law enforcement without congressional approval. On October 1, 2002 United States Northern Command was established to provide command and control of Department of Defense homeland defense efforts and to coordinate defense support of civil authorities
the “John Warner Defense Authorization Act of 2007” (H.R.5122), was signed by President Bush on October 17, 2006, and allowed the President to declare a “public emergency” and station troops anywhere in America and take control of state-based National Guard units without the consent of the governor or local authorities.
The President signed the Defense Authorization Act of 2008 on January 13, 2008. However, Section 1068 in the enacted 2008 defense authorization bill (H.R. 4986: “National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008”) repealed this section of PL 109-364
and just so you know what they call it now
Contrary to many media reports at the time, martial law was not declared in New Orleans in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, because no such term exists in Louisiana state law. However, a State of Emergency was declared, which does give unique powers to the state government similar to those of martial law.
Any of Newt’s wives willing to stand up for him when it gets ugly? Does Callista have the gravitas of Gloria Cain?
Sorry, botched the html to Gloria Cain’s video: http://www.foxnews.com/on-air/on-the-record/2011/11/15/herman-cains-wife-stands-her-husband-against-sex-harassment-allegations-thats-not-person-