What they really need is an RLC, especially if someone as recalcitrant as Gingrich is tapped to head the RNC. If a rival, more centrist national Republican org were formed, much of the business money would follow it: they aren't ideologues, they are paying for access to power, and money given to the RNC would be wasted in that respect.

As much as I would be thrilled to see the RNC crash and burn will Newt at the helm, 4 years of having to watch or avoid that pompous jackass on TV is more than I am willing to sacrifice for entertainment purposes.

Newt newest screed is how to solve problems with teens: make them work at 13, pay them to finish school early so they grow up and go to college at 15.

kid you not
he says letting kids have an adolescence is the problem

I realize that the Republicans do this to Democrats all the time, but why the constant use of the perjorative "far-right"? The Washington Times is a sleazy front owned by a religious lunatic, but its actual editorial viewpoint is pretty mainstream conservatism. That's not a good thing, but it's not "far right" either. The Constitution Party is far-right; Paul Weyrich is far-right.

Republicans have this bizarre habit of resurrecting their devils and calling them God. Nixon, G Gordon Libby, Ollie North, Tom Delay, Pat Buchanon, and Joe Scarborough. I can't wait to hear the glorification of Ted Stevens and Norm Coleman.

SHHHH! Not so loud, Steve!

BTW, Huck has his own man in mind:

http://marcambinder.theatlantic.com/archives/2008/11/huck_for_chip.php

Considering that Gingrich has spent a considerable amount of time in the wilderness, he may be just the person to lead the Republicans out of it.

Interesting. Newt's been trundled out on several occasions now, and is clearly aiming for a central role again. Thought he was aiming for the presidency, though.

Should be fun -- it will take them a while to figure out what Conservatism actually means, and until they do, they don't stand a chance. Hint: sucking up to big business is not conservatism.

Let's see a bloviating, pseudo-intellectual has-been or an Alaskan narcissist cast straight out of a David Lynch screenplay. Ooh! That's a tough one. They are really getting off to a good start by Republican standards.

Considering that Gingrich has spent a considerable amount of time in the wilderness, he may be just the person to lead the Republicans out of it.

Most of the time, being alone out in the wilderness just makes you crazier.

Well, Newt Gingrich was certainly "the one" in 1994. And if past is indeed prologue, he'll be an even bigger one in 2010.

In his conduct of politics, which he once described as warfare on another level, Gingrich is like Gen. George A. Custer: He only knows how to attack.

And with that, Gingrich the historian should remind Gingrich the politician to heed the impestuous Custer's final recorded words from Little Big Horn, sent by communique to Capt. Will Benteen, who with 150 troopers was thankfully miles behind with Custer's supply train, and would not arrive on the scene of battle until the major crnage to most of Custer's command was already done:

"Benteen: Come quick! Big Village!"

Not to mention that Gingrich hung around all through the run-up to and during the Republican primaries, talking big and letting it be known that he was ready to ride in and save the party. And with all that, he generated zero interest among party activists and less than that among the public.

They have no memory of their sins, because their own sin isn't important to them. Lying, cheating and stealing are merely tools for advancement. Moral transgressions are supremely important if committed by, or capable of being pinned on, an ideological enemy, but only tactics for themselves. Some of this is religious, dealing with a god who forgives sin upon personal confession, but to the rest of the world it looks a lot like sociopsychopathic behavior, and we're better off calling it as such. Unfortunately, it has a lot in common with certain business practices, too. See Bob Herbert's column in the NYT today.

Clinton was steamrollered by rhetoric like this; we can't afford to let it happen again. Time to call a psycho a psycho. Note, too, that Ging's adversary Steele has used the same techniques. No kinder, gentler Repubs here.

Part of a magical elixir to render the Republican party even more impotent than it already is: Just add the eye of Newt.

To even mention Newt is to admit that a good many repubs believe their glory days are in the past. Rather than reinvent themselves, they're hoping to reconstitute a stale recipe. They're hoping to bring back 'New Coke' by calling it the 'Old New Coke'.
A key ingredient of Newt's '90's revolution was the near stranglehold right wing radio had on our political discourse back then. Do they think they can reconstitute that as well?

When the Democrats faced a potentially long time in the wilderness in 2004, they tapped Howard Dean. Dean fought the party elders and espoused a 50-state strategy that seemed counter-intuitive at the time but is widely credited with making the party what it is today. In short, he fought the establishment with new ideas that benefited everyone in the long-term.

Gingrich? He's of the school that thinks the Republican Party is losing because it's not conservative enough. Ross Douthat and other right-wing intellectuals see the GOP failing to address the daily concerns of people around the country and being punished at the polls. The Gingrich school thinks it's because of earmarks. It's akin to Democrats looking at the post-Reagan landscape and thinking that if they just fight harder for ERA they'll start winning again.

The Republican Party really needs introspection and new ideas. Gingrich would bring neither.

"Lead the Republicans out of the wilderness"?

Why not. He's the guy who led them into it.

"I'm amazed at how short Republicans' memories are."

This is like your statement about Republican's looking backward. This is what defines conservatism: a longing for some idea past, uncluttered by memories of what it was actually like.

The GOP is a sad case now.

They scoffed when the Dems chose "far-left, shrill, wacko" Howard Dean as their party chairman. Of course, Dean was none of these things, but beat them in two elections.

The lesson that they learned from this experience was not that Dean was NOT a "Far-left, shrill, wacko", but that they should now elect their own "Far-Right, Shrill, Wacko" as their party chairman.

a failed former Speaker who made his mark more than a decade ago,

Failed HOW? He brought his Contract on America in front of Congress and passed some of it. What has Pelosi done that's so spectacular that compares? Compared with Frist and DeLay, the man was an ace.

As for a decade ago? Progressives hadn't seen the light of day for 14 years when they overran the DLC. 10 years? It's a blink!

before becoming widely loathed by the electorate,

loathed? We have different recollections. Public imaptience with all of politics focused on those in charge, but I don't feel it was personal.

and ultimately forced from office by his own Republican colleagues.

McCain could have carried that as a badge of honor if he'd not kissed the base's tush for four years. Gingrich might use that to his advantage. Remember, it was Tom DeLay that ousted him. How'd THAT work out for them?

Gingrich, as Speaker, shut down the government (twice),

Many Americans didn't think this was such a disaster. Doubly so when it's the GOP in control.

he pursued presidential impeachment over an adulterous affair (while carrying on an affair of his own),

Aren't we the ones saying such thintgs are irrelevant? If the current vibe I'm getting gains traction, separating moral personal conduct from leadership considerations may take hold. Democrats are unlikely to stop them and MCCain may have paved the way for him.

and offered up such visionary ideas as barring women from combat roles because "males are biologically driven to go out and hunt giraffes."

Worse, in 1994, after Susan Smith drowned her two young sons, Gingrich, just three days before the midterm elections, equated her crime with the values of the Democratic Party. In 1999, shortly after the Columbine massacre, Gingrich argued that American "elites" bear responsibility. After the shootings at Virginia Tech, Gingrich blamed liberals for supporting "situation ethics," before condemning Halloween costumes and the McCain-Feingold campaign-finance law.

Okay. Points scored. He shoots from the hip. That used to be something the press loved about McCain before he started biting the hand that fed him.

Obama and company made a point of beating on the GOP with issues. Gingrich led the GOP to power on the Contract On America. A list of ISSUES. The morality stuff was what brought him down. The issues approach might work for him if the Democrats give him a foothold to work with.

Go one. Underestimate Newt again.

A cautionary note may be in order: our system of government is designed to work best when there is some kind of tension between the Legislative + Executive branches (checks + balances, etc.). That being the case, we might not want the GOP to completely disintegrate. Partisan victory for sheer partisanship's sake may be temporarily good for the Dems, but I can't see it being good for the country in the long run.

This doesn't mean that the GOP will necessarily be the loyal opposition to the Dems. Parties have risen + fallen in the past, and it wouldn't shock me at all to see the GOP suffer the Federalists' + Whigs' fate. What comes after them may be up for debate, but something *will* come after them.

-Z

"4 years of having to watch or avoid that pompous jackass on TV is more than I am willing to sacrifice for entertainment purposes."

Like he's not all over the airwaves now? If he had some "official" Republican't role, at least they'd bring someone on to counter balance him.

I'd love to see him take his theories into practice again. After he flamed out a second time, maybe network news execs would finally realize what a thought-free blowhard he actually is.

You know. Fool me once, shame on me. Fool me twice ... uh ... you can't be fooled again.

didn't he lead the Republican revolution by way of his brainwash-the-up-and-comers talking points tapes, for years before he became speaker, and also after? his own career might have crashed, but I think he's left a mark on a generation of robots, erm, politicians on the right...

Proverb 7:10 Then out came a woman to meet him, dressed like a prostitute and with crafty intent.

Give it to Palin. She is the future of the party.
She's very eloquent. Here is a snip from her recent Fox interview:

Putting my life in my creator's hands -- this is what I always do. I'm like, OK, God, if there is an open door for me somewhere, this is what I always pray, I'm like, don't let me miss the open door ... And if there is an open door in '12 or four years later, and if it is something that is going to be good for my family, for my state, for my nation, an opportunity for me, then I'll plow through that door."

I am amused that he can get his name in the paper. He is a small time politician that was elected in a gerrymandered district in North Georgia. Hell I voted for him. He won on small margins and was elected in a district that had may be fifty thosand voters total. Predomintly Republican. Still are.He is tirless mouth the same as Rove. If he ran for dog catcher I would be surprised if he won.

Um, EC, every congressional district has roughly the same number of voters.

Thank you for remembering the Susan Smith outburst, which was an eye-opening moment for me on just how wierd this guy is. It didn't help that she turned out to have been given a hard shove downhill by the abuse of stepfather who was a right-wing Christian Coalition bigwig. Newt might have learned something from that, but he didn't.

Steve, speaking of short memories, I think you're forgetting the two-year "bomb-throwing" campaign that Newt waged leading up to the '94 election. There's a reason Doonesbury depicted him as a bomb. He was a very effective attack dog, and, the way I read this, seems to be itching to relive his glory days. The question is whether all the Newtspeak would ring hollow given his failure to actually govern effectively once he was Speaker. But as an attack dog, constantly yammering and howling at the media, he could still be troublesome--particularly if he saw a two-year anti-Obama campaign as the necessary prelude to a subsequent two-year campaign for president in '12.

he pursued presidential impeachment over an adulterous affair (while carrying on an affair of his own),

Aren't we the ones saying such thintgs are irrelevant? If the current vibe I'm getting gains traction, separating moral personal conduct from leadership considerations may take hold.

For elected positions, I'm not sure adultery is that irrelevant. Yes, McCain got a pass in the press for adultery that was 20-30 years ago. But I think Edwards was rightly criticized for putting the Presidential race at risk with a recent, and maybe on-going affair.

Bring The Scum Lizard On !!!

Yea Hah, what a rout this is going to be.

With all Newt, all the time I see a real long time in the wilderness for the GOP.

Yes. Please do this, pretty please.

"...it`s the end of the world as we know it & I feel fine..." - REM

I would not make the mistake of underestimating Newt Gingrich. For all his flaws, he is very good at media politics and is one of the few Republicans around who could unify the party.

I'd much rather have a nobody like Michael Steele running the RNC than someone experienced like Newt whose every word will carry weight with the media.

He could be a very effective opposition leader, which is not what the Democrats want right now.

Um, EC, every congressional district has roughly the same number of voters.

No, every congressional district (excluding those in states that would get less than one seat in total were the 435 seats actually distributed evenly on the basis of population) has approximately the same population, as counted in the decennial census on which the apportionment is based. This does not mean the same number of U.S. citizens, much less eligible voters, much less registered voters, much less actual voters.

Facing a Newt-infested RNC will be about as challenging as hunting Bambi with a brace of howitzers---a big buildup of smear by Republicans, followed by a brief intermission of shock and awe by our guys---and concluded by the wafting, bittersweet aroma of cordite intermingling with the ecstatic olfactory sensation of roast venison with redskin potatoes, carrots, and steamed turnips....

Newt is crazy, but I wouldn't want to see him in a position of power in the RNC. Leave him at the AEI where he can't do any more harm to our country as long as people don't listen to him. He was a menace to the progressive agenda in the 90's and he made the Republican party stronger than it had any right to be with a booming economy and a relative peace overseas under Democratic executive leadership.

The game Newt plays isn't based on facts, and don't think it's a game who's time has passed. Obama was helped by a unique bullet proofness that owed something to his race, something to the time, and something to his character. We may not be so lucky in 2012 or 2016. If Obama can fix the economy well enough for the 2010 election, watch out; the Jerimah Wrights of the world won't be so easily marginalized.

Our demographics haven't shifted enough for us to be fearless of scourges like Newt Gingrich. Careful what you wish for.

NO Newt! Steele all the way!

http://jumpinginpools.blogspot.com/2008/11/no-gingrich-for-rnc-chair.html

Just keep letting a bunch of has been OLD MEN run the GOP and you are never going to win another elect.
You just do not get it do you??

Wapiti:

"For elected positions, I'm not sure adultery is that irrelevant. Yes, McCain got a pass in the press for adultery that was 20-30 years ago. But I think Edwards was rightly criticized for putting the Presidential race at risk with a recent, and maybe on-going affair."

I totally disagree with you. It is a violation of politicians' privacy to ask questions about their sex lives. Furthermore, there has never been any correlation between having affairs and being a good or bad political leader. Was Jimmy Carter a better president than FDR?

I think if something like this disqualifies one from being president, it reflects badly on the nation and its attitudes, rather than on the candidates. Edwards--like Bill Clinton--should have simply said that his personal life was none of anyone's business from the beginning.

The Grinch that stole ChairMass!

Thanks for the reminders of Gingrich's crazier statements. Somebody needs to start a blog -- "Right-wing Lunacy Watch" or something -- to chronicle the wit and wisdom of America's ideological hindquarters. Olberman's "Worst Person(s) in the World" isn't enough to keep proper tabs on wingnuttery.

Um, EC, every congressional district has roughly the same number of voters
I think your mistaken. The census might be equal. The voter count in any district is not.

Over the past 8 years the Republicans have acquired and anti-intellectual reputation. Professor Newt Gingrich just might help get rid of that.