March 1, 2009

"I think I’m closer to Benjamin Franklin than to George Washington..."

"I’m a contributor to my country and to my times. If it turns out that there’s a moment when it makes sense to run, then I’ll run. But if I end up never being able to run, then it won’t devastate me."

79 comments:

downtownlad said...

Yes, please nominate Gingrinch in 2012. Oh please, please, please.

ricpic said...

From the NY Slimes article:

"Republicans now find they have nothing to say that isn't entirely reactive -- or reactionary."

As opposed to what? the Democrat agenda, which can be boiled down to: rape the taxpayer...and his children...and his grandchildren.

Simon said...

I think he's great, but the article contains a point that gives one pause about nominating him as a President:

"[T]he chief criticism of Gingrich among those who share his ideological convictions ... is a randomness to his brilliance, a lack of prioritization or discipline. Gingrich may be an 'idea factory,' as Paul Ryan puts it, but it sometimes seems like a factory working on triple shifts without a floor manager or anyone keeping the books ... [and some suggest that he] can’t focus on any one objective for very long."

I suggested him as a veep a few times in the last three years, but those are serious potential problems for a President. It's reason to pause, and fortunately, we have three years to mull it over.

On the other hand, I would think this might appeal to Althouse:

"There’s not really any unified, easily distillable argument in [Gingrich's] ... proposals, no ideology that might be charted on a continuum and labeled accordingly. Rather, the new-model Newt seems to be pursuing a ruthlessly responsive, almost-wikified brand of politics. His goal is to turn the Republicans into [a party whose policies appeal to] the broad support of Republicans, Democrats and independents. ... What must be obvious even to Gingrich is that none of these calculations have much to do with what his acolytes in Congress want from him right now."

Dare we say... Pragmatism?

Great White Father George said...

...Like a hell-broth boil and bubble.

"[The GOP] managed to introduce a reasonable doubt about the stimulus plan...Having presented a philosophical alternative, they could run against the bill in 2010 if it turned out only to swell the deficit without creating the jobs that Obama had forecast."

Discovered an economics website, dailybail.com, via bigpicture.com....

Did you know it is not out of the realm of possibility that General Electric may seek a bailout this year? Or that bond traders are pricing in the possibility that the United States government may default on its obligations?

Eye of newt and toe of frog,
Wool of bat and tongue of dog,
Adder's fork and blind-worm's sting,
Lizard's leg and owlet's wing,
For a charm of powerful trouble,

Like a hell-broth boil and bubble.

AllenS said...

The word Newt just seems so wrong.

rhhardin said...

You might be able to find somebody with more character than Gingrich pretty easily.

Eric said...

Gingrich was probably the last actual conservative with any real power in Washington, and I thought he did a great job as House Majority Leader. But he's led such a despicable personal life I don't see how he could ever be elected.

Americans just don't want a jerk for a president.

Eric said...

Yes, please nominate Gingrinch in 2012. Oh please, please, please.

Heh heh. I remember thinking that very thing about Obama. Be careful what you wish for.

AllenS said...

NewtS? downtownnewt? Trooper Newt? Newt mahal? Newtpic? Great White Father Newt? Newthardin? Maxine Newt? I'm tellin' ya, it doesn't work.

The Elder said...

""I think I’m closer to Benjamin Franklin than to George Washington...""

Newt never seems to lack for self-esteem, does he?

I would prefer to have a President who has character than to have a President who is a character.

Maguro said...

Washington or Franklin? At least there's no false modesty there. Looking at what he's accomplished so far, he doesn't even measure up to James G. Blaine.

Ern said...

The Cato Institute, headquarters of the nation’s libertarian academy, occupies a stunning steel-and-glass tower on Massachusetts Avenue, boasting the kind of light-filled, contemporary opulence you would expect to find in Silicon Valley.

Anybody who would write this hasn't visited very many places in Silicon Valley. Google, for example, erects tents in its buildings, because there aren't enough offices, even with three people per office. There are, I'm sure, opulent places, but not many.

traditionalguy said...

Newt is a reformer. He's not an idealogue. He is willing to suggest the best available solutions in a world that needs new solutions as fast as new tecnology presents options. In historical analogy, Newt would have been pushing for dominant Air Power while the Army and Navy was silencing Billy Mitchell as fast as they could in the 1930's. How the NYT can so easly dispense with his talents by spinning him as a grinch is not as surprising as the way no comes to his defense. No one defended Palin or Jindal recently when they were systematically slimed as mere weak humans. Besides a woman named Coulter, who has any guts left to speak out in public for the latest GOP slander victim? Fighting leftist propaganda is no picnic. I see Gingrich as having the guts to do it. So why would any conservative try to help his critics by agreeing that he is disqualified because he has human traits. What do you expect from a political leader?

Meade said...

"Newt never seems to lack for self-esteem, does he?"

I think I'm more like the greatest ever American than I am the other greatest ever American.

Michael Hasenstab said...

“I already told the House and Senate Republicans, if Obama decides to govern from the center, you have to work with him,” Gingrich told me. “He’s the president of the United States.

That quote is exactly the reason why Gingrich will not be the Republican nominee for the 2012 presidential election. Republicans cannot win by running a candidate who is 'Republican Lite.' Tried ti with McCain, look at the results.

Gingrich was said that the Reagan era is over. Rush Limbaugh put a silver spike though the heart of that nonsense in his brilliant speech at CPAC yesterday. You can view the speech on Limbaugh's website. It is worth your time to watch it, whether you follow or hate Limbaugh.

Gingrich 2012? Won't happen.

Simon said...

Maguro said...
"Looking at what he's accomplished so far, he doesn't even measure up to James G. Blaine."

Actually, what he did in the taking back the House makes one think more of Grant than Blaine. Of course, Grant was a successful general but a failed President, so maybe that's not much better.

Sheepman said...

Funny about the reference to Franklin. Yesterday I ordered a biography of Franklin after happening upon a review that Newt gave at Amazon.com.

Normally a politician's book review would not be of interest to me, but last summer I had the opportunity to talk with him about a variety of things, including historical biographies. I don't agree with all of his politics, but he's sharp and has read a lot of history. For what it's worth, I found him to be a very decent guy.

Maguro said...

Simon, my point is that Gingrich became Speaker in 1994, screwed the pooch almost immediately with the gov't shutdown and was out of Congess by 1998. His accomplishments pale next to a largely forgotten political figure like Blaine, let alone giants like Washington or Franklin. I happen to agree with a lot of Newt's ideas, but find his absurd level of self-regard pretty amusing.

Chip Ahoy said...

He was talking about his weight.

Simon said...

Maguro, anyone who runs for President has to have a staggering level of self-regard, no?

thirdresponder said...

One thing I have learned reading this blog, since I have been away from my red state roots, is that conservatives today are a lot more broad minded than they used to be where I come from. Still, I would like to say to members who most likely vote for the opposition party members, it is either "the Democrats' agenda" or the "Democratic agenda." I mean, isn't it? Are you all blind Rush followers? I don't think so. At any rate, the only thing that I really and truly see missing both in Ann and in her commenters is genuine curiosity.

Newt would have formidable this time. I'm not so sure about four years from now. There is the age factor.

rcocean said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
nathan said...

If infidelity and skirt chasing is an indication, Newt certainly closer to Ben F than to George W.

rcocean said...

Yep, he's the perfect Republican candidate for 2012. Lets see:

1) Inside the Beltway Elitist.
2) Been out of office for 10 years
3) An old white man in a suit
4) Never won an election outside his safe Republican House Seat
5) Was unsuccessful as the House Leader
6) Loves "Free Trade", open borders, H-1v's, and supports the Chamber of Commerce 100 percent of the time.
7) Thinks we need to move left - because the era of Reagan is over.
8) Talks too much and is a boring public speaker with no common touch.
9) Thinks Putin is evil, and wants to bomb Iran and start a new Cold War.

If the Republicans can't convince Dole to run again, they'll go for Gingrich.

nathan said...

B obDole? He gets handouts of free Viagra from ads he does and supplents income wioth Rev Moon money from talks given in S. America.

Sofa King said...

At any rate, the only thing that I really and truly see missing both in Ann and in her commenters is genuine curiosity.

How do you guage "curiousity," exactly? I'm curious to know.

Simon said...

Well, Michael and RCocean, you can't beat somebody with nobody, as they say, so the obvious question is who you would suggest we nominate in 1012? Pointing out Newt's flaws doesn't buy us anything. Who do you suggest?

Big Mike said...

@Sheepman, Dr. Gingrich has a Ph.D. in history and was a history professor at a small college in Georgia before entering politics. Yes, you might say that he "has read a lot of history."

But I was given a copy of one of his Civil War "alternate history" books as a present, and I can assure you that he isn't much of a novelist.

Right now there is, someplace, a Republican who will figure it all out between now an 2012. It probably won't be Palin or Jindal and certainly not Dr. Gingrich, but that unknown person is out there.

The reality is that Hayek and Myrdal -- and Reagan -- were right, and Keynes, at least when overdone the way that FDR and now Obama interpret him -- was wrong. The stimulus package is too big to manage successfully, and it will be loaded with waste, fraud, and abuse. That's obvious even before a single dollar is spent. And Joe Biden is neither bright enough nor disciplined enough to ride herd on things, so it will be worse than the Great Society.

Only a few weeks into its term the Obama administration is already creating themes for Republicans to run against. Bailing out the taxi driver who bought an $800,000 house and is in danger of being foreclosed (duh!). All the cabinet nominees who turned out to be tax chiselers. People may not grasp a trillion dollars, but they sure do get chiseling on taxes with one hand and raising them with another.

Host with the Most said...

Simon,

Thank you for your spot on comments.

I have always felt that Newt is an incredible idea man but sadly lacking in personal discipline. That fault would make him dangerous to those same ideas in the Presidency.

Kirk Parker said...

Simon, Sheepman, Host with the Most, and any other Newt admirers,

My greatest complaint about Gingrich is this long-time one: he's not nearly as smart as he thinks he is. He's like the guy that lives, eats, and breathes basketball, but couldn't begin to compete at the college level much less the pros. As just one piece of evidence, I give you his long-term fascination with the Tofflers. Gack.

This means that, contra Host, Gingrich is actually a terrible idea man, as he's just not that good at evaluating them.

Now, his skill and success as a political tactician, I fully grant you.

Fred4Pres said...

At least he is honest, I disagree with most of the politics but a thought provoking article...

John Stodder said...

thirdresponder said...

"At any rate, the only thing that I really and truly see missing both in Ann and in her commenters is genuine INTELLECTUAL curiosity."


There. I fixed it for you. If you're going to be hackneyed in your sweeping, baseless judgments, at least get the cliche right.

Frodo Potter said...

Newt Gingrich is one of the smartest of the Republicans; his I.Q. is probably 15 to 20 points higher than that of George W. Bush. I once watched him on a Cspan program called (I believe) Booknotes. He was very impressive, popping both ideas and quotations out.

Incidentally, for all those commenting on Newt’s egotism, he is indeed an egotist, but not for the reasons you are suggesting. I don’t find his comparing himself to historical figures that egotistical. We all tend to speak in analogies. Someone might say that they play golf more like Tiger Woods than like Phil Mickelson. Or they might say that they play Hold ‘Em more like Annie Duke than Gus Hansen. Since it is almost certain that the speaker in question would have trouble breaking 80, or playing poker at the final table, we accept their statement as shorthand for discussing relative strengths and weaknesses, or a predilection for certain strategies. Gingrich might have said that he was more like General Neville than General Castelnau, but no one would understand him, so he went with the familiar. Just as an aside, I would bet some serious money that Gingrich could give you an extended briefing on both those generals.

Gingrich is a formidable foe, but Obama is not going to be easy to beat in 2012. The Republicans should concentrate on midterm elections, then consolidating gains in 2012 and 2014. In 2016 they will either run against whoever replaces Biden or a completely new face. In some ways, Biden can be seen as analogous to Cheney, a veteran hand who is considered too old to run. If Obama keeps Biden on the whole eight years, then the Democrats will have to put in a fresh face. Look how well that worked for McCain, who already had a fairly high profile.

I agree with traditionalguy that Gingrich is a pragmatist in many ways. His personal life could be his Achilles heel.

I am cynical enough to think that perhaps Republicans should just sacrifice Palin in 2012. In 2016 Gingrich and Jindal would be a formidable combination. Both Gingrich and Jindal have been accused of not having charisma, but don’t forget that, after Obama, any Democrat is ALSO going to suffer by comparison. Chris Dodd? Kucinich? Please.

Thirdresponder said "At any rate, the only thing that I really and truly see missing both in Ann and in her commenters is genuine curiosity."

Really? I find the commenters to be a pretty diverse, eclectic crowd, not easily fit into a box. I find many commenters to be genuinely curious. This is a nice mix, much different from the one-note zealots of some blogs, with only an occasional troll to offer opposition views.

John Stodder said...

This old line about Gingrich from Bob Dole seems to capture the man:

"You hear Gingrich's staff has these five file cabinets, four big ones and one little tiny one. No. 1 is 'Newt's Ideas.' No. 2, 'Newt's Ideas.' No. 3, No. 4, 'Newt's Ideas.' The little one is 'Newt's Good Ideas.' "

rcocean said...

Simon,

Who should the Republicans run in 2012? How about a good politician/speaker - whose won a competitive statewide election in the last 4 years. Oh, and is a conservative.

Of course, some Republicans are already pushing people like Jeb Bush, Gingrich, and Romney. And I'm waiting for Kristol and Goldberg to start pushing for Lieberman in '012 - cause its never to early to go after the moderates

AJ Lynch said...

Newt has a lotta brain power and is a strong and persuavive speaker.

The problem is the average American has a pre-conceived notion of who and what he is. And that notion is unfavorable in the majority of minds.

Newt could not overcome this. It is a significant PR deficit.

Simon said...

Rcocean, vague abstractions aren't going to fly. We don't get to build a frankenstein's candidate - "a good politician/speaker who's won a competitive statewide election in the last 4 years and is a conservative." There is an available pool of talent; by your own standard of someone who has won a statewide election, we're talking about someone(s) that we (that is, political junkies if not America at large) have heard of. Give us a name.

Kirk Parker said...

Simon,

"Give us a name."

P...

Pa....


Oh, no can do.

Simon said...

What I mean is, it's no use to say "we want a candidate with Newt's industry, Sarah Palin's charisma, Dennis Miller's sense of humor, Ronald Reagan's ability to turn a phrase, John Roberts' easy affability and intellectual agility, Olympia Snowe's approval ratings, and if she could look like Dana Delaney that would be a bonus." That's nice of you're writing The West Wing, but it's totally irrelevant when you're talking about selecting a nominee to be President of the United States barely four years hence.

Sheepman said...

Simon, How about Limbaugh? I have no stake in who the GOP chooses, but he'd represent their base and would make the 2012 election interesting.

As for your criteria: He has Newt's industry, a better sense of humor than Dennis Miller, he can turn a phrase better than most and he can be be affable and is intellectually agile. Well that' 4 out 7, probably better than most potential GOP candidates.

Simon said...

Kirk, I love Palin (I know that Seven Machos will want to jump in here, and welcome it), and I'm absolutely open to her running again ("recall that Old Hickory didn't beat the establishment first time out, either," and neither did Reagan, for that matter). Nevertheless, as I said in posting the same NYT piece last night, there has to be a question mark hanging over her. Not concerns about Palin herself, but rather, did the tarring and feathering she was subjected to last year permanently clip her wings, or can she rehabilitate her public image and come back stronger? That isn't a question that we can answer in 2009, and we can't talk about Palin as a standard bearer until it's answered.

As with last season, it isn't hard to come up with names; Mike Pence, Sarah Palin, Newt Gingrich, and so on. The problem is that any name one can come up with has an asterisk after it that makes one wonder. On the other hand, perhaps I'm too pessimistic: Barack Obama was the quintessential asterisk candidate, and he didn't do so bad.

TitusJustShotaLoad said...

Our options are endless fellow republicans and our future looks strong.

We have Palin and Jindal and Newt. We also have Huckaby and Romney. We have a wonderful stable of talent. They are stallions ready to spring out of the gate and take over our country. I for one am excited about our possibilities.

Tom Delay would be another viable option that I absolutely ador...and he is adorable!

TitusJustShotaLoad said...

I love Rush to death but I am concerned how he will be viewed on the family values front. He has been married a few times and divorced a few times and that can sometimes be a flaw. Not with me mind you because I am not judgmental. But some may not like his marital history. Does he really believe in strong family values if he has been divorced? I don't know but am willing to give him the benefit of the doubt. If him and Ann Coulter got married and ran as President/VP they would be unstoppable!

pj said...

Dismantle corporate personhood so the system isn't crippled and actually has a chance to work at the input level for the common man w/o Obama and crew having to redistribute bad results at the output end with the clumsy hammer of policy and a fat, selfish, oblivious and stupid congress.

Oh, too late, you say? Oh well. You/we deserve it letting the fiasco go on for so long.

fcai said...

Not judgmental - right. Tell us again about your neighbor.

I would not vote for Rush for several reasons, but primarily because he is a drug addict. That is a weakness of character that should disqualify a person from holding high office, pun intended.

Good thing our current Commander in Thief is not a drug addict, much.

blake said...

How do you guage "curiousity," exactly? I'm curious to know.

The higher it is, the more you agree with him.

Actually, between Palin and Jindal, I think what the left has learned is that they can destroy anyone who is a threat pretty easily.

If they maintain that power through 2012, the Reps will nominate McCain again.

rcocean said...

Simon,


Give you a name? What would be the point? Its 4 years away. We don't need to narrow our choices and "get behind a leader".

In any case, CPAC and the selection of Steele, show the Republicans never change & never learn. The Republican party is run by the same bunch that nominated Ford in '76, Bush in '88, Dole in '96 and McCain in '08. The same bunch that supported Bush no matter what he did. The same bunch that were perfectly OK if McCain had picked a Liberal Democrat as VP.

My bet is Romney will be nominated in '012 and if not him, McCain again.

David said...

One of my law partners, Bill Kiernan, was a brilliant near crazy Irishman from Boston who was on the Harvard Law Review and somehow ended up in the Midwest. Bill was an idea a minute guy. He would say--of himself--"I have at least one great idea each day. Problem is, I rarely am sure which one it is."

Arthur said...

I'm sick to death of the GOP.

No to Romney. NO to Huckabee. NO to Steele.

I like Palin, but I can think of ZERO other Republicans I can support in any way whatsoever.

If I wanted to vote for a Democrat, I'd vote for a Democrat.

Kirk Parker said...

Simon,

"there has to be a question mark hanging over her. Not concerns about Palin herself, but rather, did the tarring and feathering she was subjected to last year permanently clip her wings,"

That's exactly what my schtick intended. I don't know, either, and it will be awesome if the answer is, yes she can overcome it--but it certainly too early to tell.

Simon said...

rcocean said...
"Give you a name? What would be the point?"

It would make your criticisms of Gingrich vaguely credible if you could name someone who is a more appropriate nominee. But credibility doesn't seem to be something that accosts you very often.

madawaskan said...

Governance is the art of compromise-and by appealing to extremists you do two things-if you piss them off in even one area they are going to show you-by not voting and at the same time by trying to appeal to them [or by acquiescing] you've PO'd more reasonable voters who are going to go out and vote-probably for the other guy.

madawaskan said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
madawaskan said...

I have a Republican friend who once worked for the campaign of Pete Wilson--he use to foam at the mouth about Gingrich's Contract with America-and not because he was against any of it.

He was against the strategy of it, and the showboating.

I translated his critique to something my dad always says [a survivor of three wars and a war planner later on in life]

Don't borrow enemies...

In other words keep your objectives to yourself and pick off your enemies one at a time.

To add looks like Gingrich is snowing himself and the Republicans in his message stream- that's not a good tactic-everybody loses focus.

Michael said...

It's indicative of the GOP's complete collapse when you've got people on blog sites arguing over who should run in an election that won't even take place for about 4 years.

What possible difference does it make who the wingnuts here support...when it's impossible to know where the country will stand after such a period of time?

The wingnuts can whine and bitch and forecast Obama's failure all they want, but it's irrelevant to the tasks at hand. If his plans work out, the GOP is toast. If his plans don't work out, they have a shot.

*How many thought Obama would be running against McCain in 2004?

John Stodder said...

I didn't like Mitt Romney at all during the campaign, but events have clearly moved in a direction that positions him perfectly to be the rational face of the Republican Party.

If McCain had foreseen that the financial collapse, not energy, would be the defining issue by the time of the 2008 election, I have to assume he would have swallowed his gum and picked Romney as his VP.

Palin, in retrospect, was a choice too much like McCain and underscored why he was the wrong guy. They were both instinctive politicians with animal intelligence rather than analytical intelligence, which is Obama's strength, and Romney's.

Gingrich seems like a talk show host to me -- a conservative Charlie Rose. Absurd to think of him as president.

Chris said...

I confess I stopped reading when they appeared to lump cato aei and heritage together.

The Anti-Michael said...

Michael said: It's indicative of the GOP's complete collapse when you've got people on blog sites arguing over who should run in an election that won't even take place for about 4 years.

Just like the Dems did after the ass whuppin' John F. Kerry took in 2003.

So, hey, thanks for your concern. The Reps will figure it out in due time.

Great White Father George said...

My candidate?

One of the nation's most capable public servants.

High energy.

International affairs expert.

A pre-eminent scholar and statesman. PhD.

Educated at Princeton and Georgetown.

Graduated top of undergrad class.

One of the world's top 100 intellectuals.

Nicknames: "Peaches." "King David."

Will be a young 60 in 2012.

Has been rifle shot in the chest.

Nation builder: Won the war in Iraq.

Petraeus.

He'll be able to get us out of Afghanistan/Pakistan.

Maguro said...

Gingrich seems like a talk show host to me -- a conservative Charlie Rose. Absurd to think of him as president.

Quite right. And I think that Gingrich's persistent hints about a Presidential run are aimed more at promoting his punditry and lame historical novels than any serious ambition for the job.

hdhouse said...

I was trying to guess who the quote was from....ohmygod Newt!

Well he is an inventive soul...like when his wife was in the hospital being treated for cancer and he sprung the divorce on her....that was thinking on his feet in the model of Franklin..I'll tell ya'!

Ya betcha'

hdhouse said...

Simon said...
"we want a candidate with Newt's industry, Sarah Palin's charisma, Dennis Miller's sense of humor, Ronald Reagan's ability to turn a phrase, John Roberts' easy affability and intellectual agility, Olympia Snowe's approval ratings, yada yada"

Well Simon, your cupboard is bare and the only republicans that fit your bill are Moe Larry and Curly and they are dead.

fcai said...

Petraeus.

I like that idea. I can dust off my I Like Ike button, and by golly, we will be led by a leader, not a goofy chain-smoking, community organizing Mao and Che worshipping left-tard. That would be nice.

rcocean said...

"It would make your criticisms of Gingrich vaguely credible if you could name someone who is a more appropriate nominee."

Your point is absurd. Gingrich would be a bad nominee for the reasons stated. Not naming a specific alternative - doesn't make him a good one or make my criticism invalid. We don't have to pick a nominee for 4 years.

But you pushed for McCain and would have accepted Lieberman as VP, so your support for Gingrich is expected. You and Bill Kristol, the masters of smart.

Michael said...

The Anti-Michael said..."Just like the Dems did after the ass whuppin' John F. Kerry took in 2003."

You're full of shit.

It was at least two years before Obama surfaced as a real possibility as a candidate and he announced in 2007.

To yap about who anybody would support if ridiculous, especially considering how many of the potential Republicans hate each other's guts.

*Oh, and I LOVE your moniker...really creative.

Michael said...

"Petraeus"

Now that's funny.

Great White Father George said...

If Pakistan and/or Mexico collapse, I hope Mr. Obama does the right things, Michael.

Already, Pakistan's president Zardari lives under virtual house arrest. "Inside the palace." He can't go out for security reasons.

He announced a new "no first strike" nuclear weapons policy only to receive an "immediate" phone call from the army chief, telling him that the nation's "first strike" police was "irreversible."

He's also said to be behaving strangely. Check out the WSJ article at the link.

Petraeus has been under fire. All Mr. Obama has done is fire up j's.

Michael said...

Mr. Obama is the President of the United States.

Petraeus is a General.

Michael Molests Children said...

Mr. Obama is the President of the United States.

Petraeus is a General.

Simon said...

rcocean said...
"Gingrich would be a bad nominee for the reasons stated. Not naming a specific alternative - doesn't make him a good one or make my criticism invalid."

Actually, it does make your criticism invalid, as you'd see if you'd think in terms of the appropriate metric. The question isn't whether Newt is ideal, the question is whether he's the best we can do. Unless or until you can propose anyone better, Gingrich is a leading contender by default.

"We don't have to pick a nominee for 4 years."

Irrelevant. I'm not asking you to make a final pick, just to name one or more names for who is in the mix and better than Gingrich. Whoever is going to be the GOP nominee is someone those of us who follow politics closely already know of; even Barack Obama - as much of a bolt from the blue candidate as one can imagine - was well-known to people who follow politics at this point in the last Presidential election cycle.

Any chance you had to dispute that point was thrown away when you insisted that one of the criteria for the 2012 candidate is having "won a competitive statewide election in the last 4 years" (12:12 PM comment, above). There are a finite number of Republicans who have won statewide elections in the last four years; if you can't name any, it puts your point in a very poor light.

"But you pushed for McCain"

No, I didn't. You will not find one comment by me "push[ing]" for McCain's nomination; rather, I accepted him as the outcome of the nomination process once the decision had been made. When you finish adolescence you'll come to understand the concept: The party made a choice; it wasn't the choice I would have preferred, but one has no business asking the party to go along with your preferred candidate if you won't go along with the party's choice if it doesn't heed your advice.

fcai said...

Obama is a president of the US. He won't always be.

Methadras said...

I heard this somewhere once and I can't remember who said it or what the context is, but it burned into my memory. It went something like this. Character is something that matters to me and something I see that I have attained for myself. Reputation is the value that people see that I have. I admire Gingrich for his intellect and what he has been able to accomplish, but he should remain a conservative policy wonk and stay out of the presidential arena. His character and reputation can only benefit from that.

Methadras said...

fcai said...

Obama is a president of the US. He won't always be.


Dear God how I wish that was true for Congress.

rcocean said...

Simon,

I was going to respond at length - until I read another one of your bitchy, little insults. Thanks Mr. Windbag, you saved me some time.

Adios.

Simon said...

rcocean said...
"I was going to respond at length"

A reply is not necessarily a response. Given that your replies are usually nonresponsive, I would expect the latter; arguing with you, one always feels like More waiting for Roper to grasp the big picture.

Cedarford said...

Hasenstab - Gingrich was said that the Reagan era is over. Rush Limbaugh put a silver spike though the heart of that nonsense in his brilliant speech at CPAC yesterday. You can view the speech on Limbaugh's website. It is worth your time to watch it, whether you follow or hate Limbaugh.

Gingrich 2012? Won't happen.


There are eerie echoes of the years prior to the 1972 Election, which followed the closer 1968 Election in which it was later recognized that Nixon had achieved a fundamental realignment that Reagan simply built on after Watergate destroyed Nixon and set back the Repubs temporarily.

What is striking is that from 1969 to 1972, the Democrats ran on the idea that Humphrey and the mainstream Dems were DINOs, that the "real FDR" was in the Left, and McGovern was FDR "modernized" for 40 years later.

The Dems got creamed as the Party clinging to old, discredited ideas.

Rush is basically the McGovernite on the Right, touting the inerrancy of Saint Reagan on both his ideas and things that he never stood for but the Right pretends were his ideas (absolute Free Trade, dying to bring democracy to stone age Muslims, dying to fight for Israel's interests).

1. Trickledown is a failure. The richest 1% have gone from having 7% of total wealth in the USA in 1980 up to 25% in 2007 while the poor slipped and the middle class is not only flat on wages, but actually shrinking.

2. Supply side (voodoo economics) was fully tried by Bush II and are a core of his miserable failures. 3 trillion in debt, most to foreign countries, while Bush lived on credit.

3. Reagan's deregulation philosophy was carried to such extreme that we had 3 minor meltdowns (savings&loans, doubling of electricity prices after dereg, the tech bubble) then the big catastrophe as deregulated bankers, financiers, CEOs and common con men (Madoff) melted the future of Republicans away.

4. Reagan never bought "Free Trade" he believed in Fair Trade. He saved auto, motorcycle, steel, and heavy equipment industries & jobs by forcing quotas on the Japs.

5. Reagan "stood up to the Russians" and the Muslims without being a pawn of foreign nation lobbyists (Saudis, Israelis, Chinese, Georgians) - and without getting us mired in wars that did not serve the US interest.

Rush Limbaugh believes the "pure Republican Party" of evangelicals, Christian Zionists, wealthy corporatists, and gung ho militarists (most who never served, like Rush) are adequate. Which discards the Silent Majority that Nixon assembled that had dominance out West, the Midwest, New England...and discards the RINO Reagan Democrats....and somehow True Rightwing Believers think that and 30 year old, mostly discredited ideas are "All Saint Reagan says we need".

Wrong.

Newt's right. He knows he will never be President, but he is badly needed to inflict a reality check on the Party and start opening them up to ideas past the late 1970s or the horrific "new" ideas of the Neocons.

Seven Machos said...

Simon -- Since you mention me, I will battle you. The problem with Palin is that McCain plucked her from political obscurity when she clearly wasn't ready for the job in terms of her own personal life or her political experience.

Obama wasn't ready for the job, either. The difference is that the press pilloried Palin -- great alliteration, by the way -- for her inexperience and was silent about Obama's. That sucks, but that's how the game is played. Palin couldn't fight back because she doesn't have the political skill or organization. (McCain has much, much less of both, but that goes back to the central question: why in the world did her pick her?)

Palin gives a nice speech. That's it. She is Obama. He's going to be a failure.

Invisible Man said...

Palin gives a nice speech. That's it. She is Obama. He's going to be a failure.

Yeah, keep believing that. I'm pretty sure that the Alex P. Keaton-like 13 year old at CPAC could give a more coherent policy analysis on just about any subject than Palin. The only thing similar between Obama and Palin is that they both know how to breathe with their mouths.

Seven Machos said...

They also both went to school in Hawaii. They both have spleens. It is true that they differ in experience. Palin has more.

But, anyway, Obama is going to be a failure. Probably a massive one.