Politico: Thompson/Gingrich?
posted at 9:22 pm on July 25, 2007 by Allahpundit
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
Well, probably not.
Publicly, Gingrich has been sending signals making clear that a presidential candidacy for him is becoming less likely. Privately, he and some of his closest advisers have been meeting with — and, in at least one prominent case, going to work for — the lobbyist-actor and former Tennessee senator.
“I’ve always said it was unlikely I would run,” Gingrich said in an interview last Friday with The Associated Press. And, he added, if Thompson “runs and does well, then I think that makes it easier for me not to run.”
The same day that Gingrich made his comments, his former communications director, Rich Galen, disclosed that he had signed on as an adviser to Thompson’s campaign in waiting. In an interview, Galen termed the coincidence “an unfortunate confluence of events,” denying that there was any link.
But that was not the only evidence of a possible Thompson-Gingrich alliance in 2008. Gingrich and his wife, Calista, had dinner with Thompson and his wife, Jeri, at the former senator’s home in McLean, Va., on July 16, according to two Republican sources close to both men. A Thompson aide would say only that “a good policy discussion” was had over the meal…
Friends and former aides … say Gingrich’s true aim is not to insert himself into the race but to press his agenda for modernizing government institutions for a new generation of problems into the heart of the contest.
He’d be bad news on the ticket because of his baggage, which I’m sure he recognizes vis-a-vis his supposed presidential run. A shrewd operator like him has probably sized up Fredmania, sees it’s his best chance to reach another position of influence, and is hitching his wagon to it now in hopes of parlaying it into a cabinet position later. And a good thing too as he’s one of the few prominent Republicans anymore who seems to have any ideas beyond “terrorists are bad.” He’d be wasted in the vice presidential role (although not, perhaps, if it continues the Cheney mode) but he’s an easy pick for some or other secretaryship. Where do you put him, though? The brainy types usually go to State but can you imagine the dissension in the ranks if Newt swept in to Foggy Bottom to ride herd?
It’d be just what they need, actually.
Update: “If you want to say no to jihad, you WILL say NO to Fred Thompson. He chose, and now we must choose against him…”
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: 1 2 Next »
Secretary of Transportation. He’s great with baggage….
amerpundit on July 25, 2007 at 9:31 PM
HHS. No.
EPA. No.
Interior. No.
Labor. No.
Commerce. No.
Energy. No.
Transportation. No.
VA. No.
HUD. No.
Treasury. No.
Education. Tickles me to think that the NEA would have to deal with him. Probably not.
Defense. Possibly.
AG. Maybe.
Homeland Security. Anybody is better than Chertoff.
Secretary of State Gingrich….that has a nice ring. I’d be down with that!
Dr.Cwac.Cwac on July 25, 2007 at 9:33 PM
Oooo, I’m looking forward to this thread!
Weight of Glory on July 25, 2007 at 9:33 PM
Secretary of Defense would be a good post.
He’s too polarizing for a Veep.
Better a benign candidate for VP who is relatively unknown than the Grinch, etc. whose Samsonite ensemble (”wife with cancer being dumped in her hospital bed for hot young mistress”, et al) would be unloaded upon Newt’s noggin by the gleefully complicit media.
After the election, he can be picked for a strong Secretarial position.
Meanwhile, behind the scenes is a good spot for the Newt.
profitsbeard on July 25, 2007 at 9:34 PM
Unfortunately, that’s too true.
State is the only Cabinet position in which I can see him–he’d certainly make a few folks mad–maybe even get a few to resign. But that’s almost too limiting–he’d probably work best as some type of special adviser to the President. I don’t know if he’d need an official title or not.
INC on July 25, 2007 at 9:34 PM
I mentioned Thompson/Gingrich a couple weeks ago, but I’m Canadian. :-)http://parentingdecisions.com/blog/2007_07.html#006721
Carol on July 25, 2007 at 9:34 PM
Oops!
I forgot one department.
Agriculture. Since when have you seen Newt on a farm? No.
Dr.Cwac.Cwac on July 25, 2007 at 9:34 PM
OOOPS! Where’s that comes a man pic again?
Speakup on July 25, 2007 at 9:36 PM
I would be stunned to see him take a VP nod. State I think he’d want, Defense also but less so.
I had already ruled Fred out last week, but if Deb is anti-Fred, I’m going to have to reconsider him, haha.
Spirit of 1776 on July 25, 2007 at 9:36 PM
AP,
In your opinion, do you think that a Newt on a ticket in ‘08 would be more unattractive then Cheney in ‘00. I was still a junior in college back in ‘00, and I don’t remember much on the baggage of Cheney.
Weight of Glory on July 25, 2007 at 9:39 PM
Definitely, Secretary of Education.
TheSitRep on July 25, 2007 at 9:39 PM
I think an advisor to the Pres. in the same manner as Rove is to Bush would be good spot for Newt.
Weight of Glory on July 25, 2007 at 9:42 PM
People are fat because they eat too much, especially too much of the wrong things and they don’t do any physical work.
Simplistic but true.
As long as the Medical, Insurance, Legal, and food industries find keeping people fat profitable, they will always be aROUND.
TheSitRep on July 25, 2007 at 9:45 PM
Thompson has “overstayed” his pre-campaign “visa”.
He will go back to honeymoon island where the babes are as soon as we catch him.
Mcguyver on July 25, 2007 at 9:46 PM
Newt is good for a discussion on what is good for America.
Maybe a presidential adviser?
Mcguyver on July 25, 2007 at 9:48 PM
Newt for U.N. Ambassador!
SouthernGent on July 25, 2007 at 9:48 PM
Newt makes no sense as VP. But Newt can be an effective aide in giving speeches and fundraising with the Republican core during the campaign.
Plus, Newt’s official endorsement would put Thompson one step away from winning the endorsement of the “insufficient conservative credentials” crowd.
…Unfortunately, that last step’s a doozy. Fred would still have to kill himself – after having made arrangements to have his body gutted, ground and then re-sculpted into an exact replica of Ron Paul. Bear in mind, though, that even then Fred wouldn’t actually get actual support from them; only a slightly less psychotic level of rabid hatred.
logis on July 25, 2007 at 9:49 PM
Gingrich can never be president. Among his considerable baggage….. He’s an intellectual. Not a chance. Nary. Nota. Zip. Nil.
He needs to think, talk, and write books. Oh, that’s what he’s doing now.
TunaTalon on July 25, 2007 at 9:49 PM
Multi-tasking, eh?
Mcguyver on July 25, 2007 at 9:51 PM
I would like to see a Fred/Newt ticket, if for nothing else, than to read all the great wife stories the WaPo and NYT would print.
Weight of Glory on July 25, 2007 at 9:51 PM
That’s true, but do you think he comes off as one? Personally I don’t.
Weight of Glory on July 25, 2007 at 9:53 PM
He is an intellectual, but he is one that is not content in intellectual pursuits. He wants to change things (for good or ill) and that necessitates power of some form – not nec. w/in government, but if it serves his end, he’ll do it.
Spirit of 1776 on July 25, 2007 at 9:57 PM
He may not be the most “electable” of conservative candidates but he certainly is the brightest, certainly has the best solutions to the majority of our problems.Lots of good old American ideas and idealism, where, oh where, do we put him?
oldernslower on July 25, 2007 at 10:02 PM
AAAANND Daily Kos goes wild!
As if they wouldn’t over Debbie’s post.
see-dubya on July 25, 2007 at 10:04 PM
I have serious reservations about Thinpson after reading DS’s piece.
bbz123 on July 25, 2007 at 10:05 PM
Dang it, AP! I was hoping everyone’s attention would be on this thread, because I love these Fred! ones; But then you go and post about MKH talking about sexual deviants, and now the posting here will be light or at least retarded (heh).
Weight of Glory on July 25, 2007 at 10:07 PM
All I remember about Cheney’s spotlight was the entire establishment saying the word “lesbian” every 30 seconds.
Quoth the MSM/Kerry, “So, Mr. Cheney, tell us about your Lesbian daughter, who is a Lesbian who has Lesbian sex with her Lesbian lover, and whose Lesbian lover is pregnant and going to be raised by two Lesbians… Even though you are (gasp) a gay-hating Republican!!”
It was really strange.
Lehosh on July 25, 2007 at 10:07 PM
I need to read up on Abraham, sounds like a problem for me.
Dersu on July 25, 2007 at 10:13 PM
Newt for Secretary of the F.N.A.
The Free Nation Alliance.
The replacement to the U.N.
Tony737 on July 25, 2007 at 10:13 PM
I’ll be happy to be assaulted on this, since I know just enough about Newt’s policies to be a danger to myself and others, but why not at Energy?
He supports alternative energies, but says oil will remain a big part of the mix for a long time; he has “Manhattan Project” capabilities, and I doubt thinks anti-corporate hippie tree-huggers are the route to energy independence. I suspect doesn’t think we can solve the energy future by putting a windmill and a solar panel on the top of AP’s New York abode.
For instance, here’s about a 5 min. blurb from Newt’s site about his ideas for “Green Conservatism” based on market ideas and not gubmunt thuggery.
Let me know what flavor of Kool-aid I’ve inadvertantly sipped. (No gulping as of yet)
eeyore on July 25, 2007 at 10:16 PM
He is quite an intellectual, the kind of academic we need more of. Of course he was or still is a professor of History. And he has a lot of interesting ideas about reforming federal bureaucracy. He always impressed me as having an intelligent grasp on foreign affairs, the economy, education, etc.
But he’s also a high-level political veteran who understands politics and the cultural conflict between the Right and the wrong. I think we need men like Newt wherever God blesses us with them, but if I were President I would want him in my Cabinet somewhere. Bill Bennett is also an academic, but he served Reagan.
I never caught Fred Feva, either…but Newt rocks. So does John Bolton.
Dork B. on July 25, 2007 at 10:17 PM
I think that would be a good fit. Of course any implementation of the Newt in any administration is going to be difficult to sell.
Weight of Glory on July 25, 2007 at 10:19 PM
Jobs for Newt in a Thompson administration:
1st term – CIA director. Do a major overhaul, get rid of all those pansey lefty traitors that choke the flow of good intelligence. (He might see this as a step down, but a true patriot would take the job for the good of the country)
2nd term – Secretary of State. Do a major overhaul, get rid of all those pansey lefty traitors that choke our foriegn policy.
The only problem is, he’d have a revolt on his hands in either job and the MSM would tear him apart with the cooperation of the career employees. Particularly at the CIA.
jaime on July 25, 2007 at 10:20 PM
You’ve heard of the Surgeon General? I would name Newt the Solution General. We could make a cool uniform for him and give him a badge and a gun, and…
Dork B. on July 25, 2007 at 10:27 PM
Obviously we’d like such a ticket… but we REALLY don’t want Gingrich to run. I’m not sure how much of an impact he’d have on their chances if he were in the VP slot, but I’m not willing to take the risk, because the overall reason that I say we REALLY don’t want him in there, is because his negatives are worse than Hillary’s, and the fact that her negatives make her virtually unelectable is one big thing we have going right now.
In polls that ask “would you definitely” “would you definitely not” vote for Hillary, it’s usually around 50% “definitely NOT”, which again makes her almost unelectable. I don’t recall the exact numbers, but it seems like Newt’s were something like 65 or 75%.
RightWinged on July 25, 2007 at 10:27 PM
So what if Newt has baggage who’s he trying to please anyway?
Oh, well, since Conservatives are catching on to greedy Corporate globalist currency loyalists, that could be debatable.
First Mewt would have to prove that he’s gone from, permanently, the deep end of those very deep, well connected, purse strings.
Speakup on July 25, 2007 at 10:32 PM
OOPS Newt
Speakup on July 25, 2007 at 10:32 PM
In a perfect world Newt would replace Cheney then go on to run for POTUS. This is all it would take to push the democrats right over the edge.
DannoJyd on July 25, 2007 at 10:33 PM
As an atheist I’ve always been uncomfortable with Newt’s Christian evangelism, especially when my own personal moral standards are far higher than his. On the other hand, religion aside, I agree with Newt on most every issue that concerns me and in a post 9/11 world I would gladly vote for him, (I think).
But I hope he isn’t on a Thompson ticket because judging from Fred’s appointment of Spencer Abraham, Fred’s a fool. I’d rather see a Newt/Hunter ticket or some such. The more I learn about Spencer Abraham the worse Fred looks.
FloatingRock on July 25, 2007 at 10:35 PM
Newt sat at the table next to me and some friends at brunch last month and was wearing a Fosters beer jacket.
That’s all, just thought it was odd attire.
hollygolightly on July 25, 2007 at 10:39 PM
Jihad Spence: Fred Thompson’s Pan-Islamist Campaign Manager
Whatever the truth of the particular case, it seems good for the Americans to remove and keep out of office all those men who have personal friendships, business ties, or political alliances with muslims. Their divine laws are alien to the American regime, and I haven’t discovered an alternative to the destruction of the muslim elite and of obedience to their god. Since it seems to have come to that, the Americans cannot be well served by rulers with ties of friendship, business, or political support among the elite, who are the ones who most of all must lose their state and their life.
Kralizec on July 25, 2007 at 10:40 PM
I, for one, said the same thing about Dr Rice. I’m not sure anyone can flourish in that quicksand.
Tanya on July 25, 2007 at 10:42 PM
Debbie Schlussel’s post about Fred and Spence is truly disturbing.
Is there a single politician in this country who is without evil connections and/or skeletons in their closet?
Don’t answer that.
IrishEi on July 25, 2007 at 10:42 PM
He’s just giving a shout-out to our allies.
Spirit of 1776 on July 25, 2007 at 10:47 PM
Why do we allow the MSM to tell us who is acceptable to run for office? Hey people, Hilary”I’m a closet marxist lesbian” Clinton is running for pres. Joe “The Palgiarsit” Biden is running for pres. Barack”I’ve Never Had a Job But I used To Sell Good Blow” Obama is running for pres.
So Newt is a hound that has been a creep to the women in his life. What about JFK? RFK? Teddy? Dead actresses and secretaries? Edwards channels dead babies but conservatives are afraid to back Newt.
We have roughly the same amount of supporters as the democrat party. To win the White House you have to convince the undecided. Conservatives go around agreeing with the leftists on which conservative is too big a creep to run.
How about conservatives getting some balls and demanding a fair election process? How about Pres. Bush going to the Hill tomorrow and telling that little prick Spector that those attorneys were fird because they would not prosecute obvious voter fraud? How about a two hour debate between presidential candidates where they actually have to reveal their thought processes and ideologies? If anyone out there thinks in a fair fight Hilary or Obama have a chance against Newt then you are fooling yourself. You don’t have a brain.
peacenprosperity on July 25, 2007 at 10:47 PM
I never thought Condi had a steel will. She had brains to spare but she was no iron maiden.
Allahpundit on July 25, 2007 at 10:49 PM
Where did my comment go?
peacenprosperity on July 25, 2007 at 10:50 PM
Ha ha, that’s what I was hoping. He was there with his wife (yes, of course, we googled the couple when we got home to check up on him) and he came in when we were almost done. I wanted to go say hi, but decided they probably just wanted to enjoy their brunch and left them alone.
I guess I need to do some Newt research if he actually may run. I know he’s conservative (at least in comparison, right), but isn’t he a little bit of a hypocrite? Forgive me while I look up more about him.
hollygolightly on July 25, 2007 at 10:56 PM
Wait a second. On the earlier Fred! post, Tad posted a comment at 3:03 PM, that contained links to sites that mentioned this guy Spencer Abraham. Only there was no mention of Islam, rather only on this guy’s working for La Raza. Is this the same guy? If so, man! Put Debbie Schlussel’s post, next to the La Raza connection, and I am really starting to wonder what Fred is doing!
Weight of Glory on July 25, 2007 at 10:57 PM
When are conservatives going to stop letting the msm tell them who is electable? The democrat party has a plagiarist, a closeted marxist-lesbian, a guy who channels the unborn and a guy who has never had a job but used to sell really good blow running for pres. Waiting in the wings they have Algore who is certifiably insane. And conservatives worry because Newt was a jerk in his relationships.
How about if the consrvatives get some guts for a change and demand a fair and legal elective process. How about if Pres. Bush goes up to the Hill tomorrow and tells that little creep Spector the truth, that those attorneys were fired because the refused to prosecute obvious election fraud.
How about if conservatives take the debate process away from the liberal league of frustrated women voters and the msm and let’s have weekly two hour debates between the candidates for pres. Real substantive questions with time for real answers so America can see the thought processes and ideology of the two pres. candidates. If anyone here thinks that Hilary or Obama would win a general election against Newt if the process were fair you are deluding yourselves.
peacenprosperity on July 25, 2007 at 11:01 PM
I thought she was, but I was obviously dreaming. I know even less about Gingrich, so maybe I’d be less disappointed this time, if he went that way.
Tanya on July 25, 2007 at 11:02 PM
People starting csdeven countdowns in 5..4..3..2..1..
And so Fred? again shows us he is either too lazy to check out who he’s hiring or he’s not the He-Man of conservatives his supporters make him out to be. “By the Power of Greyskull, I hire a pro-amnesty campaign manager and then replace him with a pro-jihad campaign manager. HOOOOOOO!”
Fortunetaly, Fred Thompson hasn’t announced yet, so his supporters can just say that this “doesn’t count.”
BKennedy on July 25, 2007 at 11:02 PM
Yeah, same guy.
FloatingRock on July 25, 2007 at 11:05 PM
Listen up. Write this down in your diaries. If Fred Thompson is the republican candidate, the democrat candidate will win with 60% of the vote.
There is nothing there. He IS an actor trying to play a conservative like Reagan. Over the course of a long campaign the msm will tear him apart. We may as well get Bob Dole out of retirement.
peacenprosperity on July 25, 2007 at 11:09 PM
Listen up. Write this down in your diaries. If Fred
Right on. You get it. And BTW, Ronald Reagan would never have acted on such a left-wing show as “Law & Order.” The show is anti-secure borders, pan-Islamist, anti-Christian, anti-Israel, anti-Semitic, and even though I’m no fan of hers, I found it disgusting that they had a character named “Elisabeth Hassenbeck” brutally raped on the show. Get it HasseNbeck–HasseLbeck?
Debbie Schlussel on July 25, 2007 at 11:15 PM
Did you read that he was a hypocrite in Time or Newsweek?
peacenprosperity on July 25, 2007 at 11:16 PM
Sorry about the above redundancy. The first post seemed to disappear in thin air and I tried to recreate it.
peacenprosperity on July 25, 2007 at 11:19 PM
I’m with you, man.
You think Hill’s not going to have staff with baggage? Her own baggage isn’t going to prevent her from getting the nomination. I’d love to see Newt debate her.
Her and her husband got a lot of cover from the MSM, but things are a lot better now in that regard; plus I think Newt communicates conservatism so well.
Dork B. on July 25, 2007 at 11:19 PM
He would have loved it probably, to know that peeps in our age bracket know him.
Your second part really interests me. Because a lot people talk about his negatives, and what he did in his marital affairs is ugh, but he already kiss the Dobson ring, so how much of a hold-up w/ the Christian right? He did apologize.
And I think he is smart enough to appeal to the small gov’ conservative + intellectual crowd, and he gets the war on terror. 60% of people think Hillary is inevitable, but she has tremendous high negatives. So I’m not sure why people think it would kill Newt. Face=time and talking to the Am. people can change a lot, we are a people generous in spirit by nature, I think :)
Spirit of 1776 on July 25, 2007 at 11:24 PM
The LIBERALS WORST NIGHTMARE.
NEWT GINRICH. Watch the media become unglued.
canopfor on July 25, 2007 at 11:29 PM
Oops ii forgot the g, I apologize.
canopfor on July 25, 2007 at 11:31 PM
I’m on a roll so I might as well keep going. I’m so sick of conservatives rolling over and letting leftists have their way while using the excuse that “We are above that.” Well the leftists aren’t above that and they understand that all those in betweeners are in betweeners because they don’t pay that much attention to what is going on unless it involves some fake reality show. The leftists make a lot of noise with some false accusations and the lame conservatives come back with,”My good freind and collegue” BS. When is someone going to go on one of these cable shows and tell Shumer to his face that he is a liar WHEN HE IS LYING!? Can someone explain to me how a political party that hates our form of government (Hilary wants to do away with the electoral college), our economic system (we aren’t turning socialist, we are socialist), thinks the worst of our military(Clinton”loathed” the military and Kerry invented “Platoon” and “Apocalypse Now” after being tutored by his North Vietnamese handlers in Paris)and thinks that their base is stupid, weak and helpless and the other parties base is greedy and evil can ever be described as PATRIOTIC?
peacenprosperity on July 25, 2007 at 11:31 PM
On a roll..
Peacenprosperity on July 25 at 11:31PM.
I agree,when the lib,s lie (or distort the facts!)
call him or her on it right then and there.
If not they keep lying right along unchallenged.
canopfor on July 25, 2007 at 11:46 PM
Honestly, I’m not sure where I read that he was a hypcorite. I just remember hearing about his involvement in getting Clinton impeached and then hearing about his own extramarital affairs during that time.
That’s why I said I need to read up more on him. I will most certainly take an apology over a “who are you to judge me” or blatant lie, a la Clinton, etc. I like the fact that what I do know seems to imply that he is blatantly honest in his views. If anyone wants to further enlighten me, I would certainly appreciate it (totally serious, no sarcasm)! Is that his biggest downfall, the affair he admitted to and apologized for?
hollygolightly on July 25, 2007 at 11:54 PM
canopfor on July 25, 2007 at 11:46 PM
They work in sound bites, they keep throwing stuff up on the wall and they know something will eventually stick. Conservatives just take it thinking that somebody will notice that they ARE SO DIGNIFIED. Well this is what the middle of road is noticing, the left says conservatives are evil, racist, homophobic and greedy and conservatives don’t deny it. That is what all those undecideds are noticing.
peacenprosperity on July 25, 2007 at 11:56 PM
Hillary Clinton has more baggage than Newt.
5 years ago Hillary had as little chance as Newt to win the President because ‘x’ number of people would definitely NOT vote for her.
If his only baggage is divorcing his wife (no matter the circumstances), he’s already heard all the stuff he’s gonna hear about that.
Hillary has Whitewater records, Vince Foster (murder), proximity to compulsive lying from her Husband, enabler, TAX AND SPEND.
I think Newt’s Conservative background and pit bull mentality make him an attractive top of the Conservative ticket against a Clinton who is going to sling as much mud as she can against anyone she runs against.
Mark my word, this will be the ugliest campaign in the history of the US. At the end of all of it, it will be vote for the least bad of the most dispicable of humans. Negative campaigning is Hillary’s calling card. The negativity might not come from her specifically, but she’ll control it. Newt is probably the only one who is strong enough to come out of it looking decent.
The Democrats should NOT be difficult to beat. They all are going to raise taxes. That used to be political suicide. In my book it still is. Newt is the best candidate even though there are those who would ‘not vote for Newt under any circumstances’.
ThackerAgency on July 25, 2007 at 11:59 PM
Newt was a jerk to his women. Clinton, the president of the US, told someone to lie to a grand jury. How is that even close to the same issue?
peacenprosperity on July 25, 2007 at 11:59 PM
I agree that Newt would waste any of the other candidates of either party in a debate. In spite of his negatives, (of which category I traditionally fall into), I think that Newt might be the only conservative that stands a chance in 08. I’d vote for him; as long as I don’t get the impression that he’s going to try to use the office to create a new Christian revival, (unless it’s entirely voluntary).
FloatingRock on July 26, 2007 at 12:03 AM
Trust me, I’m not arguing with you. I agree that’s it certainly not the same issue. Clinton was getting BJs in the Oval Office and lying about it on national television, seems to be a clearcut difference. I just want more info about him.
hollygolightly on July 26, 2007 at 12:07 AM
And who cares about Clinton telling someone to lie to a grand jury. The guy used executive privelidge to waive laws against exporting rocket and computer technology to China after he was given campaign money. Agore got caught red handed taking the money from a chinese generals daughter at a buddhist monastery and his answer to being caught was to tell America to F#@* off. Then the FBI sees that the democrat party seems to be collecting an aweful lot of money from foreign governments and they give a report to the White House. Then the CIA sees that there is an aweful lot of activity by chinese agents in the US and they give a report to the White House. Then Bill tells Jamie Gorelick to do something about it and she makes sure that the FBI and the CIA can’t compare notes and then what did we get? 9-11
But Newt can’t run for pres. because he’s a hound and wasn’t very nice to his wives.
peacenprosperity on July 26, 2007 at 12:07 AM
Yeah, there is a clear distinction to me. Clinton committed perjury on the subject of infidelity, and Newt pursued Clinton for it which engaging in infidelity. I don’t see them as the same thing, but I understand why and how he gets labeled a hypocrite for it. Heck people get ‘righteously indignant’ over Coulter/CPAC. Truth usually somewhere in the middle. But it easy to misconstrue when in the interest to do so.
What Newt has done personal in his life is distasteful for me, but that’s his peace to make, not mine. He apologized for it, so that implies a maturity.
My own opinion is that Newt’s ego got in his way and he failed to thwart the Clinton’s casting of him. They made him a villain.
I imagine her’s was a comment of memory, not judgment.
Spirit of 1776 on July 26, 2007 at 12:12 AM
Do not take my rants personally, all this mealy mouth stuff about finding a place for Newt in some future administration set me off. There will not be a conservative administration for a very long time if ever again unless we find a leader.
Newt has written several books about policy. They are very interesting, thoghtful and well thought out. You don’t have to agree with him on everything to see that he actually thinks. It is very frustrating knowing that the only real thoughts the probable next pres. is having right now is that they want to be pres.
peacenprosperity on July 26, 2007 at 12:12 AM
that’s it
*that it’s*
hollygolightly on July 26, 2007 at 12:13 AM
It’s in the eye of the beholder, I guess, but I think that perhaps Newt’s biggest downfall,IMO, is that when one of his wives was diagnosed with cancer he divorced her and found another whom he was probably already seeing on the side. I think that he said their relationship was already on the ropes when she was diagnosed.
I hope I’m not mixing Newt up with somebody else, but I assume that somebody will correct me if I’m wrong.
FloatingRock on July 26, 2007 at 12:17 AM
Agreed. And thanks for the back-up! It was certainly a comment of memory, not judgment at all. I wanted clarification since it’s been a while since Newt’s really been in the limelight.
I certainly don’t take your rants personally. You just seemed to be on top of Newt’s background moreso than me presently and I wanted your honest feed back. I want all the info I can get right now b/c I’m having a lot of trouble finding a candidate to firmly back and it’s troubling. I will check out at least one of Newt’s books next week while on vacay (FINALLY) and catch up! Thanks!
hollygolightly on July 26, 2007 at 12:19 AM
If you get a chance, check this article out:) It won’t answer your questions on the past, but it’s this stuff
that moves me to hope for the future.
Spirit of 1776 on July 26, 2007 at 12:28 AM
Thanks for that. That’s the kind of thing I want to clear up if Newt is seriously taking a look at running. I prefer to come here for some of my news and info, rather than the MSM, b/c at least you guys will say (for the most part), yes he/she screwed up, here’s how, make your determination on how strongly you feel about it.
hollygolightly on July 26, 2007 at 12:30 AM
Read some of Newts early books and the word that comes to mind is progressive. It’s just a shame that the leftist Orwellian word machine has coopted that word also and ruined it.
And just to clarify things, it’s not that I am a big Newt backer. Even with the statements he’s making I feel like he’s being wishy washy. I understand what he is saying about what the pres campaign has become but I wish he would stop trying to be cute. I think anyone of the republican candidates (with the exception maybe of Ron Paul but I’m not even sure what I have heard about him is true) would run circles around anyone of the leftists.
Conservatives have to stop acting like these democrat candidates are actually legitamate possibilities to run this country just because the democrat party says they are.
peacenprosperity on July 26, 2007 at 12:32 AM
I think he honestly doesn’t know/hasn’t decided. I like Hunter best as of this moment, but Newt would make me think.
I agree. The majority of this country tends to conservative thought. Better to tap in to that instead of running scared, I think.
Spirit of 1776 on July 26, 2007 at 12:36 AM
But there agian the msm has told us that Duncan Hunter can’t win so he isn’t even gven a voice. All these so called conservative talk radio people say how great Hunter is but then write him off.
We will get whomever the msm thinks is acceptable as a candidate and they will lose to the democrat.
peacenprosperity on July 26, 2007 at 12:40 AM
A lobbyist is as a lobbyist does.
Buh Bye freddie boy.
csdeven on July 26, 2007 at 12:42 AM
Thanks for the info Spirit and Peace!
That’s nice to hear, especially in respect of peacenprosperity’s comment:
, with which I agree.
I certainly like that!
hollygolightly on July 26, 2007 at 12:44 AM
Well, not WH press sec, that’s reserved for fred?. Maybe he should just do what Ollie does. Be a commentator and carry Rudy’s or Mitts! water for the next 8 years.
csdeven on July 26, 2007 at 12:46 AM
Yea. Not about the ‘best’ candidate this days. Which is sad, because we are resigned to less than the best leadership.
Spirit of 1776 on July 26, 2007 at 12:46 AM
Yeah, it’s really frustrating. Everybody seems to like Hunter but he can’t build any momentum. My impression is that although the MSM may be partly to blame, it’s also partly because he didn’t have the early name recognition combined with the fact that he’s not as flashy as some of the other candidates. He had one or two good one-liners in the debates, but not as many as the MSM candidates. One-liners mean nothing, but these days they seem to be everything.
If everybody had known who Hunter was before these things had already been decided, he would probably be polling a lot better right now.
Another likely factor is that Fred seemed like a viable candidate, (until Abraham, IMO), and at least seemed reasonably conservative, so Hunter was easily overlooked. Fred may have actually turned out to be nothing more than a spoiler for Hunter, a real conservative.
FloatingRock on July 26, 2007 at 1:00 AM
Well, guys, I have to take your word on Hunter, but I can tell you this, if he’s as good as I’ve heard, this will not be the last we hear of him. Perhaps 2016 after serving in the next admin for 8 years will give him the name recognition that will make him competitive?
csdeven on July 26, 2007 at 1:10 AM
Newt would be a great chief of staff.
Mojave Mark on July 26, 2007 at 1:20 AM
I like Fred, but I’d rather have HUNTER!
Tim Burton on July 26, 2007 at 2:00 AM
At this stage I think the strongest ticket could be Rudy/Newt, malkins and brains.
bbz123 on July 26, 2007 at 2:07 AM
Exit question: How does Debbie Schlussel keep from breaking her own jaw given the frequent and vigorous knee-jerking?
I’ll take my political advice from someone a little more… I don’t know… sane. It really is too bad that she’s so far over the deep end; she does get it right sometimes.
Next perhaps she can fill us in on how Fred Thompson once ate a croissant, which is cresent shaped, therefore HE MUST BE IN LEAGUE WITH ISLAMIC TERRORISTS!!!
Hollowpoint on July 26, 2007 at 2:16 AM
Hollowpoint, when I skimmed over Debbie’s summary of Abraham I didn’t notice much in the way of “political advice”. It was mostly comprised of a summary of Spencer Abraham. Instead of trying to score hollow points against Debbie, why not verify her facts and let us know if she is wrong about Spencer? You might as well base your arguments in reality instead of croissants, which I have to say is pretty weak.
FloatingRock on July 26, 2007 at 2:40 AM
secretary of HHS….he seems to talk abotu health issues a lot…more than most conservatives anyways.
its vintage duh on July 26, 2007 at 3:44 AM
The cautious seldom err.
- Confucius
Better a diamond with a flaw than a pebble without.
- Confucius
If you shoot for the stars [like Debbie] and hit the moon, it’s OK. But you’ve got to shoot for something. A lot of people don’t even shoot.
- Confucius
MB4 on July 26, 2007 at 4:11 AM
I like Newt; He’s a great historian and is able to apply that historical knowledge into the present and accurately predicting the future. His (all too short) Leadership of Congress very possibly ’saved the nation’.
I’d love seeing him in some sort of Presidential advisory situation, But he will never be elected to national public office again or appointed any position that requires congressional approval.
I’ll bet money on it, and give you 2 to 1 odds.
Sorry about all the sentences with leading Is.
LegendHasIt on July 26, 2007 at 5:29 AM
Newt would make a great President–as would Duncan Hunter. Why would some of you settle for somebody that is not very conservative just because that’s who the MSM tells you that’s the best choice.
We need to pick a good conservative with conservative values all around (not just on SOME things) and then do everything we can to get him elected.
pugsly on July 26, 2007 at 5:40 AM
If it would come down to Newt and Hillary, do you think that any media focus on his “baggage” would bring up the subject of hers? If morality and integrity are questioned in this election, Newt can undergo more scrutiny than Hill. Don’t you think?
Also, Newt won’t roll over for the attack machine like W. I’m also tired of the left throwing everything they can, using every dirty trick in the book, just to destroy our party and conservatism. While exempting themselves from their own standards. But I’m even more tired of letting them get away with it.
Hillary’s a criminal, Obama has no experiance, Edwards is a huckster, and Al Gore tried to steal the 2000 election. But the MSM will give them a pass on all that, and our side’s typical response is bend over and you know the rest.
Dork B. on July 26, 2007 at 7:05 AM
legendHasit – you are exactly right – Newt would never get congressional approval for any position. Also, the last place he should have anything to do with is the State Department. Something happens to people who go into the State Department. If Hitler had been Sec of State, history would be different.
msflea on July 26, 2007 at 7:42 AM
CUT the “baggage” comments…..
ALL POITICOS HAVE IT….
You are just jealous that YOUR MAN RUDY’S is just HEAVIER THAN NEWTS.
seejanemom on July 26, 2007 at 8:01 AM
Comment pages: 1 2 Next »