Video: Gingrich is in

posted at 4:59 pm on May 11, 2011 by Allahpundit

I’m not as bearish about his chances as most for the reason I gave last night: If, if neither Palin nor Huckabee runs, then Newt could gobble up their social conservative supporters and benefit from a split on the other side among Romney, Pawlenty, and Daniels. It’s unlikely, admittedly, but not impossible. Nate Silver, after running a bunch of statistical polling models, puts his odds at around nine or 10 percent. I wouldn’t go quite that high — five or six feels better — but it ain’t zero. Remember how we all laughed at McCain’s chances during the summer of 2007, when his campaign collapsed financially and those stories started coming out about him having allegedly once considered switching parties? QED.

Speaking of Huckabee jumping in, Paul Bedard of U.S. News and World Report hears things:

Mike Huckabee, the former Arkansas governor who leads in several 2012 GOP presidential polls, is stepping up his loose-knit campaign and may decide internally by late June or July if he will enter the race, with August slated as when he would officially announce for his second presidential bid, according to associates…

The timing would put the announcement right before the important Iowa Straw Poll, set for August 13. Four years ago, he came in second behind Mitt Romney, a shock that boosted his campaign and eventually spurred his first place victory in the 2008 Iowa Caucus.

Insiders said that he wants to run and is already forming a preliminary staff of aides and trusted advisers led by his 2008 consigliere Ed Rollins.

Hard to see where Newt finds an opening if Huckabee swoops into Iowa and then the centrist candidates go all-in on New Hampshire. Presumably he’d try to make his last stand in South Carolina, but he’d be a heavy underdog without any victories under his belt by that point. Such is the fate of longshots.

He’ll be on Hannity tonight to launch his campaign in the media. One interesting footnote to the clip: There’s surprisingly little pandering on social issues, even though that’s where his path to the nomination lies. Curious.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

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 3 4

Peel off 20% of the Black vote from Obama and no way he wins. And don’t kid yourself in the African American community there are degrees/shades of Blackness.

I just wish someone that was a MEDIA TESTED / BATTLE HARDENED and Fearless Conservative was running in 2012.

:-(

PappyD61 on May 11, 2011 at 11:03 PM

Historically, blacks opt for the white liberal over the black conservative (happened in my district in 2010). Why on earth do you believe a bottom of the ticket, unknown black would peel 20% away from Obama?

mankai on May 11, 2011 at 11:45 PM

Bradky on May 11, 2011 at 11:42 PM

I like that :)

DarkCurrent on May 11, 2011 at 11:46 PM

Are there some sins that are more disqualifying for office than others? If so, how to rank them?

DarkCurrent on May 11, 2011 at 9:01 PM

I don’t understand your point, presuming you have one. Are you saying that there is nothing that would, in your eyes, disqualify someone from getting your vote, because no sin is greater than any other? Maybe you should look up the word “discernment?” We all have to decide for ourselves who is worthy of our trust.

You have been implying that we can’t judge anyone else’s character because we all sin, too. By that standard, serial rapists would qualify for public office.

JannyMae on May 11, 2011 at 11:47 PM

I’ve thought long and hard about how to make my opinion about Gingrich known. So, here it is… *BARF*.

boomer on May 11, 2011 at 7:17 PM

+1

I’m curious as to NR’s take (particularly K-Lo’s as she has one, solid requirement which usually garners her support and Newt’s got it!).

mankai on May 11, 2011 at 11:47 PM

Bradky on May 11, 2011 at 11:42 PM

Chess sucked.

MadisonConservative on May 11, 2011 at 11:47 PM

MadisonConservative on May 11, 2011 at 11:47 PM

LOL – I was more of a Devo man myself…

Bradky on May 11, 2011 at 11:48 PM

I don’t understand your point, presuming you have one. Are you saying that there is nothing that would, in your eyes, disqualify someone from getting your vote, because no sin is greater than any other? Maybe you should look up the word “discernment?” We all have to decide for ourselves who is worthy of our trust.

You have been implying that we can’t judge anyone else’s character because we all sin, too. By that standard, serial rapists would qualify for public office.

JannyMae on May 11, 2011 at 11:47 PM

I was probing yours to understand better. I still can’t make any objective sense of it.

DarkCurrent on May 11, 2011 at 11:51 PM

I was probing yours to understand better. I still can’t make any objective sense of it.

DarkCurrent on May 11, 2011 at 11:51 PM

You don’t understand how a person can use discernment in evaluating the character of a candidate for public office, based on their personal behavior? Then I am afraid I can’t help you.

Based on your other posts on this thread, presuming you are serious with them, you seem to be of the opinion that all men cheat on their women. Why you feel that way is anyone’s guess, but my gut says that you probably use that outlook to justify your own bad behavior.

You never answered my question about what personal indiscretions, I.e. “sins” you you would consider as bad enough to disqualify a candidate for public office. I can only conclude that you are not being serious, and are only wasting my time. Good evening to you!

JannyMae on May 12, 2011 at 12:21 AM

You don’t understand how a person can use discernment in evaluating the character of a candidate for public office, based on their personal behavior? Then I am afraid I can’t help you.

I understand the concept, just not how to practically apply it objectively.

Based on your other posts on this thread, presuming you are serious with them, you seem to be of the opinion that all men cheat on their women. Why you feel that way is anyone’s guess, but my gut says that you probably use that outlook to justify your own bad behavior.

You’re probably more right than wrong on this.

You never answered my question about what personal indiscretions, I.e. “sins” you you would consider as bad enough to disqualify a candidate for public office. I can only conclude that you are not being serious, and are only wasting my time. Good evening to you!

JannyMae on May 12, 2011 at 12:21 AM

I haven’t been able to draw an exact line, which is why I’m interested in your thoughts.

DarkCurrent on May 12, 2011 at 1:35 AM

If social conservatives would vote for this guy, I will take great pains to never call myself a social conservative again.

MadisonConservative on May 11, 2011 at 5:04 PM

Hey Madison BABY, they were all having a menage a trois! Hey I wonder what Newt and his ex were drinking that night…and maybe they cussed each other out, and said g-d d-mm, WOW, how enlightening, to ponder where another man’s sperm is going…. Oh and by the way ,He DIDN’T LIE to a Judge…Under OATH…remember the LAW??

jollybird on May 12, 2011 at 4:42 AM

Everything old is Newt, again.

Fallon on May 11, 2011 at 5:04 PM

And old is the contitution, right?

jollybird on May 12, 2011 at 4:52 AM

And old is the contitutionCONSTITUTION, right?

jollybird on May 12, 2011 at 4:54 AM

DarkCurrent on May 12, 2011 at 1:35 AM

Just finished reading through the thread and now I’m more intrigued by your thoughts, actually. I agree that there are cultural differences and I certainly cannot speak for Shanghai (although my mother in law did just return from visiting during the New Year celebrations and said it was quite lovely, interrogation by a government official aside). Here, however, we do still hold our elected officials to various moral standards (at least as far as we can see), even if the rest of the country does not adhere to the same. On a personal level, I agree with you that total faithfulness in mind, heart and body for a lifetime seems an impossibility. We all have our secrets. But that’s also part of the deal when you commit to someone for life, bad and good. I’ve done plenty of crazy things in my 33 years thus far, many things I regret. Having been married for a mere handful of those, I’d be naive to think I won’t make plenty of mistakes in the next 50 years or so. I certainly don’t think I could ever run for office in light of my past. Further, while I might explain certain biblical or moral principles in a debate here or elsewhere, I do try to avoid posturing as some moral superior. I’m NOT.

Now, does infidelity and/or divorce preclude someone from higher office? I think it depends on the circumstances–that line which you (everyone, really) struggles to define. Americans love a good redemption story and would embrace a truly contrite, changed individual. given that said offense were still something culture frowns upon. For now, that includes marital unfaithfulness.

As a Christian, I believe all sins are equal before a holy God. In society, you’re correct in saying it differs from culture to culture. I don’t know if we’ll ever be like the French at Mitterrand’s funeral where his wife and mistress (and their daughter together) grieved publicly, side by side. I suppose that’s a good thing, though worth debating. If we are more libertarian-conservative, why do we care about their personal conduct if they’re liberty-loving, staunch small-government advocates, born out by their record? Do we need our leaders to exemplify certain moral standards because on our own we can’t do it ourselves, because it’s somehow good for society to maintain said standards? Reminds me a bit of a recent drug legalization debate I had. One argument is that legalization would be de facto endorsement (read: bad for society). The opposing argument was that individuals were responsible for their actions and it wasn’t the government’s role to necessarily speak to personal behavior or morality, in essence. Would electing a serial philanderer be de facto endorsement of infidelity? Does it (or should it) really matter to a true (libertarian) conservative?

Anyway, sorry for the length. Call it stream of consciousness… :)

Bee on May 12, 2011 at 6:14 AM

Think McCain would have made a good president? Think again

McCain Proposes Indefinite Detention Without Trial for U.S. Citizens

Senator John McCain (R-Ariz.) has introduced a bill that would allow the President to imprison an unlimited number of American citizens (as well as foreigners) indefinitely without trial. Known as The Enemy Belligerent Interrogation, Detention, and Prosecution Act of 2010, or S. 3081, the bill authorizes the President to deny a detainee a trial by jury simply by designating that person an “enemy belligerent.” The bill, which has eight cosponsors, explicitly names U.S. citizens as among those who can be detained indefinitely without trial

Spathi on May 12, 2011 at 6:44 AM

Anyway, sorry for the length. Call it stream of consciousness… :)

Bee on May 12, 2011 at 6:14 AM

Thanks, I’m interested in the Christian view on such things.

What was the circumstance of your mother-in-law’s interrogation? From my experience that’s very unusual, though once about 10 years ago, when I was still a visitor, I was pulled out of a bar by police in Beijing. I was concerned at first, but it turned out they just wanted me to help interpret for an African lady in the police station across the street (she had an expired visa). That’s the scariest I’ve seen.

DarkCurrent on May 12, 2011 at 7:33 AM

How can Huck wait until June or July to make an internal decision if FOX News gave him until June to decide or lose his show? Or, did I misunderstand something?…

Gohawgs on May 12, 2011 at 7:53 AM

MadisonConservative on May 11, 2011 at 5:04 PM

If Newt gets the nomination, are you going to vote for him, obaka or stay home?

That is what you need to ask yourself.

As for me, I will vote for a tuna fish sandwich against obaka if it gets the GOP nomination.

ladyingray on May 12, 2011 at 8:04 AM

DarkCurrent on May 12, 2011 at 7:33 AM

My verbal/mental diarrhea embarrasses me often. Probably could have said the same thing in about three sentences, so…yeah.

Interrogation: was somewhat joking. My mil went with a few ladies to help a woman who fosters many special-needs kids in cooperation with local (underground)house churches. They naively went on a tour of the Forbidden City/Great Wall, etc., alone with an official who was a friend of a friend of a friend (something like that). He was unfriendly at best, and took each of the women aside at various points, multiple times, to ask them what they were doing, who they were with and why. Jarring experience, but they weren’t officially detained.

Bee on May 12, 2011 at 8:17 AM

ladyingray on May 12, 2011 at 8:04 AM

Looking at Newt’s other troubling positions of late, I know I’d have a hard time voting for him. I had a pretty hard time defending McCain in the last election and I don’t know if I could handle it again. Dissonance overload.

Hopefully it won’t get to that point, though.

Bee on May 12, 2011 at 8:21 AM

Bee on May 12, 2011 at 8:17 AM

Been to the Wall and Forbidden City a few times, but never had such an experience. I guess just a strange friend of a friend of a friend.

DarkCurrent on May 12, 2011 at 8:29 AM

DarkCurrent on May 12, 2011 at 8:29 AM

Probably so. They said it was weird. The rest of their visit was pretty positive, aside from the pollution. MIL then said she could see the worth of the EPA in such cases…annnnd that’s when she lost me. :D

Oh, but, question: is there something offensive about taking pictures during New Year celebrations? Some superstition? She made the mistake of doing so (in a more rural area where they stayed much of their visit) and they got very angry and almost took her camera from her. Was curious about that.

Bee on May 12, 2011 at 8:39 AM

Oh, but, question: is there something offensive about taking pictures during New Year celebrations? Some superstition? She made the mistake of doing so (in a more rural area where they stayed much of their visit) and they got very angry and almost took her camera from her. Was curious about that.

Bee on May 12, 2011 at 8:39 AM

I’ve never had any problem with that, though some people just don’t want you to take their picture if they don’t know you.

I didn’t take any this year, but this is CNY 2010 in our neighborhood. Skinny kid in the hood is my son :)

DarkCurrent on May 12, 2011 at 8:53 AM

DarkCurrent on May 12, 2011 at 8:53 AM

Well, they were taking pictures of these streetside burning ceremonies (?) and it seemed related to that. They said it was different in the larger cities, so it could have been something unique to the province they were in. Happened a few times with different groups of people.

How old is your son, if you don’t mind me asking?

Bee on May 12, 2011 at 9:38 AM

Hopefully it won’t get to that point, though.

Bee on May 12, 2011 at 8:21 AM

Hopefully, but what if it does? Do you plan to stay home and give obaka another 4 years by default?

I don’t. I’ll hold my nose if I have to, but I refuse to stay home.

ladyingray on May 12, 2011 at 9:47 AM

ladyingray on May 12, 2011 at 9:47 AM

Well, it’s still early. I’m going to see what our options are and work tirelessly for my candidate of choice during primaries and go from there. But no, I’ll never stay home on election day.

Bee on May 12, 2011 at 9:54 AM

Too bad! Beacause no Newt is good Newt!

GFW on May 12, 2011 at 1:06 PM

Nwet For President Retirement!

Timothy S. Carlson on May 13, 2011 at 8:22 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4