Editore"s Note
Tilting at Windmills

Email Newsletter icon, E-mail Newsletter icon, Email List icon, E-mail List icon Sign up for Free News & Updates

June 5, 2006

RUN, NEWT, RUN....I find it hard to believe Dems would get this lucky in '08, but these results are encouraging anyway (via Stakeholder).

Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich was the easy winner of a straw poll Friday night that tested 2008 presidential candidate support at the Minnesota Republican Party state convention. Gingrich got about 40 percent of the 540 votes cast, putting him far ahead of Virginia's Sen. George Allen, who got about 15 percent. Next were Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and Arizona Sen. John McCain, each with about 10 percent.

"This shows activists think that Gingrich has the cachet to help set and drive the conservative agenda, just as he did when he led the Republican takeover of the House in 1994," said Tony Sutton, a Gingrich supporter and secretary-treasurer of the party. "He and Ronald Reagan were the two most important conservatives in the last 30 years."

The results also confirm once again that party activists are considerably more conservative than Republican voters and the public in general.

That last point seems particularly noteworthy. Early national polls for '08 are testing little more than name recognition. While these state straw polls are hardly scientific, they do reflect a problem for which "front-runners" like McCain and Giuliani have not yet crafted a solution: they have a long way to go before they convince the GOP base that they're conservative enough to be the Republican nominee.

As for the former House Speaker's possible interest, he's been traveling to Iowa and New Hampshire quite a bit, and he has a new book coming out: "Rediscovering God in America: Reflections on the Role of Faith in Our Nation's History and Future."

Run, Newt, run.

Steve Benen 1:37 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (55)

Bookmark and Share
 
Comments

Newt is a fine American and a patriot. We should all be so lucky to fellate him, as I have.

Posted by: American Hawk on June 5, 2006 at 1:48 PM | PERMALINK

The Democrat election cycle:

-- Crow about how imminent victory is, picking on patriotic politicians (Either George Bush, McCain, in this case Newt).
-- Nominate somebody way to the left of the mainstream while calling them electable, apparently without irony.
-- Run on a far left platform, gaining popularity only because of the complicity of the liberal media, and its willingness not to report the facts.
-- Increasingly lose the ability to hide the far leftism as election day draws near. Make mistakes, such as voting against funding the troops.
-- Lose on election day. Badly.
-- Try to steal it, by blaming the boogiemen at diebold and 'finding' extra votes (WA governor race). IF that fails, turn to the courts (Gore's failed coup in 2000... where, you'll note, he only got 2 Supreme Court justices to sign on to his view).
-- Blame the media.
-- Blame the DLC, the only organization keeping the democrat party afloat.
-- Crow about how victory is imminent NEXT time.

Posted by: American Hawk on June 5, 2006 at 1:48 PM | PERMALINK

In 1994 Newt made what I think was the nastiest, most utterly unjustifiable comment ever made vy a major political figure up to that time. He blamed the Democrats for the fact that Susan Smith had killed her two kids.

This makes no sense at all and is just creepily nasty. As it happens, Smith had been sexually molested by her stepfather, who was important in the state Republican Party and the local Moral Majority. But that's just extra; even without that, what Gingrich said would have been unforgivable. I really believe that this was some kind of turning point, when the Republicans came to realize that they could get away with anything..

He got away scot free, and quickly became Speaker of the House.

He's made a lot of unbelievably nasty statements, and hopefully someone is putting together a library of film clips in case he does get the nomination.

And oh yeah, there were blow jobs too.

Gingrich on Smith

Posted by: Humble blogger on June 5, 2006 at 1:52 PM | PERMALINK

American Squawk:

I'd *love* to know what your idea of "far left" is :)

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on June 5, 2006 at 1:54 PM | PERMALINK

Rmck:

-- Reading rights into the constitution. Conservatives fell into that trap with Lochner, but currently its the domain of the left. Think Roe, Lawrence, Casey, etc.
-- Government take over of healthcare.
-- Cumulative tax rate above 40%
-- Forcing kids into failing public schools, to benefit teaching unions (opposing school vouchers)
-- Terrorrist appeasement.
-- Blaming Israel for everything (this is the fringe, fringe left; not the entire far left is mired in anti-semitism).
-- Extensive political correctness (renaming everything; illegal immigrants become 'non-traditional workers' or what have you)
-- Illegal immigrants should vote (Busby).

That's what comes to mind off the top of my head.

Posted by: American Hawk on June 5, 2006 at 1:57 PM | PERMALINK

Is it too early to start reminding everyone of Newt's hypocritical sex life?

Posted by: def mf on June 5, 2006 at 1:59 PM | PERMALINK

And the first poster in this thread cowardly hijacked my name, obviously. That's been happening more and more lately. Can the admins make it stop?

Posted by: American Hawk on June 5, 2006 at 1:59 PM | PERMALINK

The second one is the real me. You should be able to tell by the content.

I've now registered a real email address, and am using it as some protection against hijacking. If something doesn't sound like me, email me. It's active as of this post.

Posted by: American Hawk on June 5, 2006 at 2:04 PM | PERMALINK

I think the first American Hawk is the more real.

Posted by: def mf on June 5, 2006 at 2:07 PM | PERMALINK

And I am the world leading expert on cowardice.

Sorry...gotta go, my mother's calling me.

Posted by: American Hawk on June 5, 2006 at 2:09 PM | PERMALINK

I don't see any difference in content between the first two posts. Do love that both of them specifically get all hot over Newt's "patriotism." I'm having a lot of richly satisfying chuckles at this blog today.

Posted by: shortstop on June 5, 2006 at 2:13 PM | PERMALINK

An imposter posing as American Hawk wrote:

Newt is a fine American and a patriot. We should all be so lucky to fellate him, as I have.

So you write a comment using someone else's handle, all so that you can impersonate them with some silly comment? That strikes me as childish even for liberals.

Posted by: sportsfan79 on June 5, 2006 at 2:16 PM | PERMALINK

"Reading rights into the constitution."

Like Loving v. Virginia?

And is 'Lochner' the decision that gave corporations rights as--kinda--individuals? You know the one I'm talking about, no? That's gotta be the most far-reaching case of reading rights into the constitution, so if that's Lochner, AH, we totally agree.

Posted by: gussie on June 5, 2006 at 2:17 PM | PERMALINK

In 1994 Newt made what I think was the nastiest, most utterly unjustifiable comment ever made vy a major political figure up to that time. He blamed the Democrats for the fact that Susan Smith had killed her two kids.

Link, please.

Posted by: sportsfan79 on June 5, 2006 at 2:18 PM | PERMALINK

Link, please.

Besides Alternet.

Posted by: sportsfan79 on June 5, 2006 at 2:21 PM | PERMALINK

Like Loving v. Virginia?

The 14th Amendment-- passed democratically-- was designed to end race-based discrimination. It doesn't speak to abortions, or gay sex.

And is 'Lochner' the decision that gave corporations rights as--kinda--individuals?

No, it's the one that read an inalienable right to contract into the 14th, thus invalidating laws against maximum hours worked. A law designed to protect people was struck down by activist judges, in a prelude to Roe v. Wade.

You know the one I'm talking about, no? That's gotta be the most far-reaching case of reading rights into the constitution, so if that's Lochner, AH, we totally agree.

Corporations are statutory creatures, not constitutional ones. They were invented by legislatures, and predate America. But thanks for playing; your ignorance is astonishing.

Posted by: American Hawk on June 5, 2006 at 2:24 PM | PERMALINK

ASquawk, you really have no idea what you're talking about, do you? every one of your points is a caricature of a Coulter-ish misrepresentation.

Posted by: cleek on June 5, 2006 at 2:25 PM | PERMALINK

Cleek-- You consistently say things like that, but never address an actual point. Why do you even bother?

Posted by: American Hawk on June 5, 2006 at 2:26 PM | PERMALINK

ASquawk, you really have no idea what you're talking about, do you? every one of your points is a caricature of a Coulter-ish misrepresentation.

There's a difference between Hawk's post and yours. His had actual content, your's didn't. Kind of like your party's platform.

Posted by: sportsfan79 on June 5, 2006 at 2:27 PM | PERMALINK

The second one is the real me. You should be able to tell by the content.

To be honest they both sounded like ya, but referring to Newt as a fine American and patriot cinched it for me that you were actually the first poster. Why?

Because it fits with your whole shtick, which is to make utterly false, foolish and outrageous statements as if they were self-evidently true.

Enough about that, give us some juicy details about what Newt is really like in the bedroom. Does he like to pretend you're Hillary and really give it to you?

P.S. If you get cancer and end up in the hospital, don't expect him to stick around.

Posted by: Super double patriotic trex (the "t" stands for "vicTory!!!" ) on June 5, 2006 at 2:30 PM | PERMALINK

Gingrich-Rice 2008. Yeah, that's a winner!

Posted by: R.L. on June 5, 2006 at 2:30 PM | PERMALINK

Link, please.

Besides Alternet.

How about CNN?

"How a mother can kill her two children,14 months and 3 years, in hopes that her boyfriend would like her is just a sign of how sick the system is," observed Gingrich, "and I think people want to change. The only way you get change is to vote Republican."


Posted by: cyntax on June 5, 2006 at 2:30 PM | PERMALINK

American Squawk:

> And the first poster in this thread cowardly hijacked
> my name, obviously. That's been happening more and
> more lately. Can the admins make it stop?

Why is it, Squawker, do you think that so many so-called
"freedom loving" right-wingers are closet authoritarians?

Pansy-assed authoritarians, too. The very worst kind.

Oh, oh, PLUH-LEEEEZ Mr. Moderator, Sir -- PWOTECT MEEE from the
TEWWOWISTS who steal my name to satirize a strident political
opinion that runs directly against the grain of this blog !!!

Hey, pal -- Kevin runs this place according to pure FREE-SPEECH
principles. He doesn't even delete 20-page Chinese character spam.

You don't like it? Why don't you let THE MARKET
DECIDE and peddle yer papers elsewhere, eh?

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on June 5, 2006 at 2:31 PM | PERMALINK

"Rediscovering God in America: Reflections on the Role of Faith in Our Nation's History and Future."

Oh Jesus fucking christ...

Hang a second Newt... while I stopper up my ears.

Posted by: koreyel on June 5, 2006 at 2:32 PM | PERMALINK

Cyntax-- Deconstruct the statement.

"How a mother can kill her two children,14 months and 3 years, in hopes that her boyfriend would like her is just a sign of how sick the system is."


That's undeniably true, unless you think a mother killing her children is healthy.

.. and I think people want to change. The only way you get change is to vote Republican."

That's a separate statement. It doesn't neccesarily have anything to do with the first part. It's clear that the American people did want change, as they voted Republican.

As usual, the liberal media took him out of context.

How come none of you want to talk about Busby asking illegal immigrants to vote?

Posted by: American Hawk on June 5, 2006 at 2:33 PM | PERMALINK

You don't like it? Why don't you let THE MARKET
DECIDE and peddle yer papers elsewhere, eh?

Wow, what a disproportionate reaction. Asking the management for change is part of the free market, numb nuts.

Posted by: American Hawk on June 5, 2006 at 2:35 PM | PERMALINK

Chill. This was MINNESOTA, folks. Gots no pro wrestlers to choose from this election.

Newt vs. Hillary would be a great cage match, eh?

Posted by: wishIwuz2 on June 5, 2006 at 2:36 PM | PERMALINK

American Squawk:

And what I'm telling YOU, Squawker -- is that Kevin looks at your "requests" and no doubt CRACKS UP at them ...

For all the years he's run a blog, you'd kinda think he'd have contemplated closed registration and decided a freewheeling blog with no limits on cursing and potental slander made for a more, uhh, vibrant atmosphere :)

Like I think we'd all have that nickel for every time a poster complained to Kevin in email about the "unruliness" here :)

I can imagine his response has become a form letter at this point ...

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on June 5, 2006 at 2:41 PM | PERMALINK

Mother, mother, they are calling me names again!

Help me, mommy!

Posted by: American Hawk on June 5, 2006 at 2:41 PM | PERMALINK

American Hawk--

So we Democrats always "lose badly on election day", huh?

You mean the way we lost in '92, '96, and '98?

You mean the way we outvoted the Republicans in three straight presidential elections?

You mean 2002, where a shift of less than 150,000 votes nationally gives the Senate to the Democrats?

You mean 2004, where Bush didn't even crack 51% of the popular vote (Check Leip's site if you don't believe me) and won "reelection" by the narrowest margin since 1916, failing to crack 300 electoral votes AGAIN and coming within one state of losing?

By the way, your remark about Gore trying to stage a coup in 2000 is such astonishingly dishonest bullshit that I can only see it as an example of psychological projection. From Katherine Harris illegally flushing qualified Democratic voters from the voting rolls to the right-wing riot in Miami's Board of Elections (the participants in which were all Republican congressional staffers, including DeLay's chief of staff) to a Supreme Court decision so laughably corrupt that the court's MAJORITY even said it could not be used as precedent, the 2000 election WAS A RIGHT-WING COUP D'ETAT. It's typical of lunatic right conservatives like you to lie through their teeth, but this goes too far even for you.

Look, I can't help it if you're upset over the way America has deserted your hero. He's been an utter disaster as president. He's a liar, a sociopath, an incompetent, and the worst president of the last 100 years,maybe the worst in history. I used to be a conservative Republican until about 15 years ago, when the right-wing religious nuts began to take over the Party. Now, I wouldn't vote Republican if you paid me.

Posted by: Joe on June 5, 2006 at 2:42 PM | PERMALINK

Oh, oh, PLUH-LEEEEZ Mr. Moderator, Sir -- PWOTECT MEEE from the
TEWWOWISTS who steal my name to satirize a strident political
opinion that runs directly against the grain of this blog !!!

Wow. Weird.

Posted by: sportsfan79 on June 5, 2006 at 2:42 PM | PERMALINK

American Hawk--

So we Democrats always "lose badly on election day", huh?

You mean the way we lost in '92, '96, and '98?

You mean the way we outvoted the Republicans in three straight presidential elections?

You mean 2002, where a shift of less than 150,000 votes nationally gives the Senate to the Democrats?

You mean 2004, where Bush didn't even crack 51% of the popular vote (Check Leip's site if you don't believe me) and won "reelection" by the narrowest margin since 1916, failing to crack 300 electoral votes AGAIN and coming within one state of losing?

By the way, your remark about Gore trying to stage a coup in 2000 is such astonishingly dishonest bullshit that I can only see it as an example of psychological projection. From Katherine Harris illegally flushing qualified Democratic voters from the voting rolls to the right-wing riot in Miami's Board of Elections (the participants in which were all Republican congressional staffers, including DeLay's chief of staff) to a Supreme Court decision so laughably corrupt that the court's MAJORITY even said it could not be used as precedent, the 2000 election WAS A RIGHT-WING COUP D'ETAT. It's typical of lunatic right conservatives like you to lie through their teeth, but this goes too far even for you.

Look, I can't help it if you're upset over the way America has deserted your hero. He's been an utter disaster as president. He's a liar, a sociopath, an incompetent, and the worst president of the last 100 years,maybe the worst in history. I used to be a conservative Republican until about 15 years ago, when the right-wing religious nuts began to take over the Party. Now, I wouldn't vote Republican if you paid me.

Posted by: Joe on June 5, 2006 at 2:43 PM | PERMALINK

From Mark Shieds' Nov. 4, 2002 column at CNN.Com

This is the same Gingrich who days before the 1994 election chose to exploit the horror of Susan Smith, the South Carolina woman who had drowned her two toddlers in the backseat of her car.

"How a mother can kill her two children,14 months and 3 years, in hopes that her boyfriend would like her is just a sign of how sick the system is," observed Gingrich, "and I think people want to change. The only way you get change is to vote Republican."

http://66.102.7.104/search?q=cache:65AyISq9ELIJ:www.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/11/02/column.shields.opinion.gingrich/index.html+newt+gingrich+susan+smith&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=2

Posted by: Stefan on June 5, 2006 at 2:44 PM | PERMALINK

You consistently say things like that, but never address an actual point. Why do you even bother?

what's your point? you're spouting upfounded nonsensical claptrap. at best, it's troll-bait; at worst, you're just an ignorant Hannity parrot. the only appropriate answer to stuff like that is ridicule.

Forcing kids into failing public schools, to benefit teaching unions

the first part is ludicrous, the second part is asinine, and together they create a statement that is so flatly ridiculous that it doesn't even deserve to be called "wrong".

Posted by: cleek on June 5, 2006 at 2:48 PM | PERMALINK
How come none of you want to talk about Busby asking illegal immigrants to vote?

I've just been assuming its one of the many lies about Busby's immigration positions originating from the Bilbray campaign and being picked up by right-wing mouthpieces and being repeated by people like you, as I haven't seen any direct links to credible sources about it.

But if you want to present some substance and make a case that there is something to talk about relevant to the subject of a thread here, maybe people would be willing to talk about it here.

Posted by: cmdicely on June 5, 2006 at 2:50 PM | PERMALINK

The scary thing is that he may end up sounding pretty reasonable compared to the other Republican candidates

Posted by: fostert777 on June 5, 2006 at 2:50 PM | PERMALINK

Mommy! Mommy!
They are tearing me to pieces again.
Do you think I should change my name again?
Do you think they would recognize me if I used American Tbozo?
Mommy! Mommy!
What do I do?

Posted by: American Hawk on June 5, 2006 at 2:52 PM | PERMALINK

Newt is a fine American and a patriot. We should all be so lucky to fellate him, as I have.

Posted by: American Chicken Hawk on June 5, 2006 at 2:53 PM | PERMALINK

American Hawk:

In all seriousness, Hawk (and I know you're definitely a notch or two above the usual trolls here), I've posted on moderated fora and I've posted on free-speech fora.

The moderated, registration-only fora were *always* more vicious, demoralizing and closed-minded. You haven't seen a flamewar until you've posted on the NYT message boards.

Moderators tend to become sucked up into the psychodrama -- there's always a war between "narks" and "squealers" who write to them asking to control this or that poster, and the mod -- usually awaking from a Rip Van Winkle-like snooze in front of the keyboard -- gets exasperated and bans *everybody*.

This kind of place allows the snarky posts -- but the snarky posts gain no momentum, notoriety or cache for "bending the rules." People in these kind of places blow off steam and then move on.

Which is I'm certain why Kevin chooses to run PA the way he does.

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on June 5, 2006 at 2:54 PM | PERMALINK

Ah! The liberals' premature ejaculatory fantasies.

Posted by: American Hawk on June 5, 2006 at 3:06 PM | PERMALINK

I don't know that Newt would be all the weak a candidate. Sure, he's got some baggage, but which major political player doesn't? I doubt his rather colorful relationship history will be a bar to high office in postmodern America. Certainly if he's running against Hillary in '08, it's hard to imagine the Dems would be able to use the serial marriage issue to any great degree.

The fact is Newt's a rather thoughtful, policy wonkish type of guy. Almost a GOP version of Bill Clinton, now that I think of it -- complete with the bad diet and roving eye. After eight years of complete domestic policy non existence, a guy like Newt -- bristiling with ideas and policy papers -- might not be in such a bad spot. What's more, he even manages to come across as reasonable on TV. This is no doubt partly explainable by the fact that he (like a lot of us) has mellowed with age. But it's also partly explainable by the fact that, compared to the Republicans currently in power in both the executive and legislative branches, Newt really is a seemingly reasonable person who actually thinks and cares about things like healthcare, the environment and education.

Posted by: Simon on June 5, 2006 at 3:17 PM | PERMALINK

American Hawk:

> -- Reading rights into the constitution. Conservatives
> fell into that trap with Lochner, but currently its the
> domain of the left. Think Roe, Lawrence, Casey, etc.

"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not
be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

US Constitution, Ninth Amendment.

You have a problem with that? Because if you do -- I'll
tell you I have a problem with the Second Amendment :)

> -- Government take over of healthcare.

Medicare and the VA hospital system -- both overwhelmingly
supported and more-or-less well-run programs.

> -- Cumulative tax rate above 40%

Fudged number no doubt from a right-wing outfit like
Citizens for Tax Justice. Fact remains America has
the lowest tax rates of any country in the G8 --
and we get more back from taxes, more efficiently.

> -- Forcing kids into failing public schools, to
> benefit teaching unions (opposing school vouchers)

Considering the so-so record of charter schools -- and the additional
corruption pressure through the profit motive (teachers hired with
bad qualifications, etc) -- I'd say keeping education a broad public
good instead of a sectarian or private-sector concern is also broadly
supported by the American people -- despite the manifest problems
produced by a society that generally undervalues education.

> -- Terrorrist appeasement.

John Kerry ran to Bush's *right* on terrorism. He offered no
clear choice -- and people, given a choice between Republican
Lite and the GOP will vote for the real McCoy every time.

> -- Blaming Israel for everything (this is the fringe, fringe
> left; not the entire far left is mired in anti-semitism).

So you make a distinction between "the fringe, fringe left"
and the "far left." Where's "radical left" -- somewhere
in between, or even further out than the fringe, fringe? :)

Or do you mean "fringe fringe" as in James Baker
III in Bush I threatening to cut off Israel's loan
guarantees if they use the money to build settlements?

Fact is, hardline Israel supporters have done
a damn good job of conflating any and all
criticisms of Iaraeli policy with anti-semitism.

Israel is part of the problem, not the solution. You can't advocate
democracy while your key ally in the region is an apartheid state.

And Israel knows this as well, which is why it's
disengaging from Gaza and some of the West Bank ...

> -- Extensive political correctness (renaming everything;

That was an au courant criticism back in '92 :)

> illegal immigrants become 'non-traditional
> workers' or what have you)

And right-wing extremists become "the public-sphere
challenged differently political" :):):)

> -- Illegal immigrants should vote (Busby).

Straw man -- obviously. Nobody has remotely proposed
giving the franchise to non-citizens of any stripe.

> That's what comes to mind off the top of my head.

If "head" is the word you want :)

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on June 5, 2006 at 3:31 PM | PERMALINK

Newt: A GOP candidate even Hillary could beat.

Run, Newt, run!

Posted by: ajl on June 5, 2006 at 3:55 PM | PERMALINK

That's undeniably true, unless you think a mother killing her children is healthy.

"... and I think people want to change. The only way you get change is to vote Republican."

That's a separate statement. It doesn't neccesarily have anything to do with the first part. It's clear that the American people did want change, as they voted Republican.

As usual, the liberal media took him out of context.

AH, Frankly I think you're being disingenuous with your "deconstruction." You are correct when observe that we have two seperate clauses, but they are clearly not seperate statements as they are part of the same line of argument.

1)"How a mother can kill her two children,14 months and 3 years, in hopes that her boyfriend would like her is just a sign of how sick the system is," observed Gingrich, 2)"and I think people want to change. 3)The only way you get change is to vote Republican."

Are you really arguing that it's just coincidence statement 2) follows statement 1) and the Newt isn't infering a connection which he follows up with a call to action 3)? Come on.

Posted by: cyntax on June 5, 2006 at 4:25 PM | PERMALINK

The scary thing is that he may end up sounding pretty reasonable compared to the other Republican candidates

Oh, sure-- Newt's a fairly competent thinker by political standards, and an absolutely brilliant one by GOP standards, although among fellow Ph.D types... eh, not so impressive.

Posted by: latts on June 5, 2006 at 4:34 PM | PERMALINK

There are two reasons that people vote republican
1: The are ass holes who don't care about anyone else least of all society as a whole (most often the rich who are unwilling to sacrifice for the good of the whole)
2: They are too ignorant to know what they are doing (the poor religious right who latch on to a single issue like abortion and base their political decisions on only this issue, despite the fact that their candidate will hurt their economic, education, and health care situation).
(Guess which one Newt is, ill give you a hint: he's a smart guy)

Now don't get me wrong as left as I stand I respect the republican party a great deal. As a party the republicans stand as one power who has a clear and focused goal. They are willing to take the necessary steps to achieve their goals without screwing around and making sure everyone feelings are OK. I even agree with some of the original republicans ideas of individual and states rights, although they carry much too far. The problems with the republican party are the majority of the things they believe in hurt the majority of the people in this country and only help a select few.

Although I am a proud democrat I must say I would be something else if there was anything else worth being in this country. The democratic party is too idealistic and too afraid of stepping on toes to be effective enough even to gain power which is kind of sad, the only thing the democratic party is really lacking is a leader or unifying ideology, they are simply too divided to ever be a challenge to the republican party. This is where Newt comes in.

Newt is an aggressive demanding republican who was born with an agenda. He is not above mud slinging or shady behavior and he will do ANYTHING to get what he wants. If elected president he will most certainly get allot accomplished but it wont be what is best for this nation or its people. Unfortunately I don't see a democratic who will be able to stop the republican Juggernaut anywhere on the scene.

PS. my name really is newt, I'm Jewish and I still consider Israel one of the biggest problems in the middle east so there is no antisemitic sentiment attached to this statement.

Posted by: Newt on June 5, 2006 at 5:04 PM | PERMALINK

I think that Newt has as much of a shot of getting the nomination as any other serious candidate out there. First off, anyone who can plan and then even more importantly, successfully end 40 years of Democratic rule of the House is a political operative of the highest rank. One should not be so quick to dismiss his political skills in getting support for himself in an open field. Especially among the hard core base, for whom the victory of 1994 was almost as sweet as defeat over the Soviet Union.

Second, conversatives love big, bold status quo shaking ideas and Newt loves to propose and talk about big ideas.

Third, given the dismal performance of the Bush and the GOP Congress of late, the base will be extremely anti-insider and will look for an outside to lead the party. That is why no currently elected federal officeholders like Senators will get the nomination.

Finally, given a choice between Newt, McCain, Allan, Frist, Rudy et al., I would choose Newt in a heartbeat.

Posted by: Chicounsel on June 5, 2006 at 5:13 PM | PERMALINK

AH: "But thanks for playing; your ignorance is astonishing."

Actually, I was trying to converse, not play. Thought that was the point. Guess not. Sorry for interrupting your play.

Posted by: gussie on June 5, 2006 at 5:48 PM | PERMALINK

wishIwuz2 : "Chill. This was MINNESOTA, folks."

Our Republican party is second only to Texas in terms of its nutty rightiness.

This suggests that Newt could be formidable--he'll appeal to conservatives who aren't religious fanatics, the conservatives who think that the problem is GWB's administration, not the fundamental principles of conservatism.

And I look at that list--Gingrich, Rice, McCain, Allen--and only one strikes me as 1) a bright person who is able to articulate coherent conservative policies, and 2) not a Bushco suck-up.

Posted by: PTate in MN on June 5, 2006 at 6:42 PM | PERMALINK

Chicounsel: "Finally, given a choice between Newt, McCain, Allan, Frist, Rudy et al., I would choose Newt in a heartbeat."

Seconded. Not that I would ever vote Republican. But I might be tempted if Hillary Clinton were the Democratic nominee.

Posted by: PTate in MN on June 5, 2006 at 6:45 PM | PERMALINK

It doesn't really matter who the Republicans nominate in 2008. They'll win.

They control the broadcast media (which is far more powerful than these blogs), they control the federal purse strings, and they control the companies that own and operate the voting machines.

Posted by: vanessa on June 5, 2006 at 6:51 PM | PERMALINK

What always killed me about Newt, was that until he left the Congress--Mr. Big Government is evil and Reagan Revolution and all--had never earned a paycheck that had not come from a government agency. Prior to entering congress he was a professor at a state college.

And of course there is the serving of divorce papers on his wife in the cancer ward.

Posted by: Freder Frederson on June 5, 2006 at 8:13 PM | PERMALINK

My favorite Newt insult was regularly told by Bob Dole to Senators. Dole used to say that if you went into Speaker Gingrich's office in the Capitol, you'd see four five-drawer filing cabinets, and one tiny two-drawer filing cabinet.

The first tall filing cabinet was labeled "Newt's Ideas." The second was labeled "Newt's Ideas." The third tall filing cabinet was labeled "Newt's Ideas," and the same label was on the fourth five drawer cabinet. Dole would pause and then say, "The one short two-drawer filing cabinet was labeled "Newt's Good Ideas."

Posted by: Pat on June 5, 2006 at 9:07 PM | PERMALINK

American Hawk, I don't like the way people are treating you here. But you're making no sense when you say:
That's a separate statement. It doesn't neccesarily have anything to do with the first part. It's clear that the American people did want change, as they voted Republican.
As usual, the liberal media took him out of context.

You literally said that considering a sentence together with the sentence that precedes it, i.e., together with its context, "took him out of context." This is the most Orwellian use of the English language I have seen in months, and deserves some kind of prize for disingenuity.

Posted by: trilobite on June 6, 2006 at 10:49 AM | PERMALINK

Nominate somebody way to the left of the mainstream while calling them electable, apparently without irony.
-- Run on a far left platform, gaining popularity only because of the complicity of the liberal media, and its willingness not to report the facts.

These statements are sheer conspiracy talk. Democratic candidates (all of whom in my lifetime have been pro-business, frequently ex-military, all except maybe Carter quite assertive about national defense) are "far left" and run on "far left" platforms. Gee, but somehow they keep getting roughly half the vote. An objective observer might think that either they're not really far left, or your side is equally fringe. But no, you say, it's all the fault of the evul liberal media hiding the truth! Which evul librul media is at this point, I think, down to two newspapers and one network. Somehow, you imply, all those midwestern newspapers, talk radio, and Fox can't compete -- despite market surveys showing that they're actually capturing a great deal of the market.

This is asinine.

Posted by: trilobite on June 6, 2006 at 11:00 AM | PERMALINK




 

 

Read Jonathan Rowe remembrance and articles
Email Newsletter icon, E-mail Newsletter icon, Email List icon, E-mail List icon Sign up for Free News & Updates

Advertise in WM



buy from Amazon and
support the Monthly