And Then There Were Four

[Joe Guy]

The reason that Perry would never have been the Republican Presidential candidate is that Republicans decided they didn't want to another George 'Dubya' Bush in office.

[Lord Jim]

Well we certainly didn't want a somebody who made George W look like Demosthenes....

[Gob]

You found someone who doesn't? Breathing?

[Sue U]

Scooter's points about Newt's hypocrisy (extolling the sanctity of marriage while cheating on his wife) are well taken, however Sue this:

Plus, there was that whole business about excoriating Bill Clinton for adultery while the whole time cheating on his own wife (with whom he cheated on his previous wife). Can you say "big fat hypocrite"?

is not, since the Impeachment (which I fully supported and still do) was about perjury, subornation of perjury and obstruction of justice, not sex.

Now, if you have some quotes of Gingrich criticizing Clinton for cheating on his, wife, then we'll have apples to apples...

Ahem...

"The speaker once again pledged to say during every public appearance that Americans have the right to know the truth about the Lewinsky matter and that the president is not above the law.

"This is not about politics. I dont know and I dont care how this strategy polls. This has nothing to do with vendettas or witchhunts or partisan advantage, "Gingrich wrote." This is very simply about the rule of law, and the survival of the American system of justice. This is what the Constitution demands, and what Richard Nixon had to resign over.
The tabloid headlines are causing Americans to lose further trust in the government and the rule of law, Gingrich said."

Try not to believe the CURRENT spin Gingrich is trying to put on his actions. That's from CNN...1998 Gingrich Attacks Clinton On Lewinsky Matter, Foreign Policy - CNN

WANT MORE???

Gingrich Orchestrated GOP Ads Recalling Clinton-Lewinsky Affair

On Touchy Subject, Speaker Stays Quiet (Oct. 24)
By Ceci Connolly and Howard Kurtz
Washington Post Staff Writers
Friday, October 30, 1998; Page A1

The GOP's multimillion dollar ad campaign invoking President Clinton's relationship with Monica S. Lewinsky was devised by House Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-Ga.) and tested before more than three dozen groups of likely voters before Republicans unleashed the assault, party sources said yesterday.

MORE??
"Gingrich: Clinton's account makes him 'misogynist'

Thursday, September 17, 1998

BY DAVID ESPO
Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON -- Speaker Newt Gingrich told fellow Republicans on Wednesday that President Clinton's own account of his relationship with Monica Lewinsky depicts him as a "misogynist," GOP congressional sources said. Gingrich argued forcefully for releasing a videotape of Clinton's grand jury testimony.

The sources, speaking on condition of anonymity, said that at a closed-door meeting of GOP lawmakers Gingrich detailed Clinton's version of events in his relationship with the young aide -- multiple episodes in which the president received oral sex without touching her sexually and with no instances of sexual intercourse.

If that account is to be believed, Gingrich said, Clinton's behavior is that of a "misogynist," a word the dictionary defines as a hatred of women.

BTW, I lifted this from a Republican BBS: http://www.republicanoperative.com/foru ... post476529

[Lord Jim]

Okay, I'll give you the second part where Gingrich is calling Clinton a "misogynist" ...

Given the way he has treated women, for Gingrich to be calling anyone a "misogynist" is the height of hypocrisy....

Mr. Pot say hello to Senor Kettle...

It's as bad as Ted Kennedy calling someone a "misogynist"...

However in the first quote, where he talks about "the rule of law", he has to be referring to the perjury and obstruction and not the sex, since the sex was not illegal.

[Sue U]

Just wanted to point out the news quote you neglected to mention:

The GOP's multimillion dollar ad campaign invoking President Clinton's relationship with Monica S. Lewinsky was devised by House Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-Ga.) and tested before more than three dozen groups of likely voters before Republicans unleashed the assault, party sources said yesterday.

So while he was careful enough not to be the frontman (because of his own vulnerability on the issue), he was more than happy to craft the message for everyone else to carry.

However in the first quote, where he talks about "the rule of law", he has to be referring to the perjury and obstruction and not the sex, since the sex was not illegal.

Read what he actually says -- he's very obviously playing it both ways. He claims "this is not about politics ... or partisan advantage" (first off, oh please are you fuckin' kidding me? If there's ANYTHING Newt is all about it is politics and partisan advantage) and then invokes "the tabloid headlines" (which, as you will undoubtedly recall, were all about Linda Tripp and stains on a blue dress, and not anywhere mentioning "the rule of law" or "the survival of the American justice system").

[Crackpot]

Hey give the winner of SC a break

[dgs49]

Just thought I would tag this partial essay onto this thread because it didn't fit anywhere else.

I don't know who Erick Erickson is, but I think he has captured why Newt is surging among conservatives. This is a part of his column:

People [that is to say, the "Republican base"] are mad as hell they are about to be stuck with another boring, moderate, uninspiring choice that has at best a 50/50 shot at losing to the worst president since Carter. They are flocking to Newt not because they think he’s a great guy, but because right now, he’s the only one fighting for conservatism and GOP voters are looking for a vessel to channel their anger with Obama and their complete disappointment with the GOP establishment which is now embodied perfectly by Romney. They want a conservative fighter because most conservatives look back at Ford, Reagan, Bush, Dole, Bush, and McCain and see only the ones taking a conservative path against the Democrats actually winning.

Trump was a flash in the pan last year, but it was because he took the fight to Obama. And all of the others (Bachmann, Perry, Cain, etc) got their rise because at the time voters sensed they would fight back with them. If nothing else, in the last year, Newt has proven he won’t wilt like Mitt did yesterday under pretty basic questioning from Laura Ingraham or a month ago under routine questioning from Brett Baier.

Newt has taken the worst the media, Romney and the left can dish out, and he’s still standing and fighting with passion and eloquence. Sure, he’d probably be an erratic President, but right now Republican voters don’t care about his Presidency. They care about the fight with the left both Mitt Romney, and the Washington Republican leaders like John Boehner and Mitch McConnell don’t seem inclined to engage in.

In every way in the last two weeks, Romney has signaled he won’t fight for the base. He looks like a lost child when trying to answer the taxes issue. He couldn’t stand up to Santorum in the debate. He sounds every bit like Gordon Gekko, not Milton Friedman, when he talks Bain and free markets.

Basically, today’s vote is about Republican grassroots giving the Washington Republican establishment the finger. The base is angry, and right now, only Newt is left to fight for them, as imperfect as he is. We may still end up with Romney, but voters aren’t going to let him have it easily.

Party leaders who have invested so much in Mitt Romney might want now to ride on to a brokered convention and find someone acceptable to everyone. Because this most divisive and bitter primary in years is going to wipe out the GOP’s chances to win in November. And while few of the Romney advocates of the past four years will admit it, it is because they have tried to foist onto the base a milquetoast moderate from Massachusetts as energizing to conservatives as a dead battery.

[Liberty1]

That article essentially summarizes my opinion as well. It's not so much folks love Newt, as much as they dislike Mitt.

Newt has been verbalizing conservatism. Even with his odd comments here and there, it is clear he has conservatism in his heart, it flows out of him. He has "newterred" the press when they try their gotcha questions, people believe he would do the same to BO.

Mitt seems uncomfortable with the whole subject.

[Gob]

When candidates for president seek photo-op backdrops to emphasise their vision and values, they invariably invoke images of small town squares and rural Main Streets.

The first three primary contests in this year's election, Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina, reinforced this Thomas Jefferson-meets-Norman Rockwell ideal. News crews followed the candidates across landscapes of farmland, diners, rural factories and county fairs.

But this is not the America that wins presidential elections. That America lives in its suburbs, including the iconic Levittown, Pennsylvania.

For the last six presidential contests, since Democrat Michael Dukakis invited cameras to watch him working around his suburban Boston yard, the more moderate voters in the American suburbs have decided which candidate went on to live in the White House.

More recently, about 35 "swing" suburban congressional districts have determined which party controls Congress.

Don't expect this election cycle to be any different.

Interesting analysis.

[Lord Jim]

More recently, about 35 "swing" suburban congressional districts have determined which party controls Congress.

As longtime GOP strategist Mike Murphy observed on Meet The Press this past Sunday:

"What Newt is great at, is kind of playing piano of music of resentment in the Republican primary electorate; we’ve got a lot of mad people. But the reason the liquor sales in the last 24 hours have quadrupled in Washington, is truckloads of champagne are going over to the Pelosi office and hard whisky’s going to the Republican office because Newt Gingrich cannot carry in a general election a swing state that were made of feathers. This is a fact of politics."

I think that's spot on.

And here's what Brit Hume, not generally known as an Obama cheerleader had to say:

Fox News Senior Political Analyst Brit Hume, just before FNC wrapped-up coverage at 10 PM EST Saturday night:

There will be more to the case to be made against Newt Gingrich as a possible nominee by Republican office holders, especially those in the House and the Senate, across the country. And here’s why: From the latest Fox News/Opinion Dynamics poll – these numbers will change as they do from time to time – this is favorability versus unfavorability. Mitt Romney, 45 favorable, 38 unfavorable. Ron Paul, 35 favorable, 40 unfavorable. Rick Santorum, 31 favorable, 34 unfavorable. Newt Gingrich 27 percent favorable, 56 percent unfavorable. Believe me, Republicans in Congress will be terrified to run with this man for fear they will lose the House and the Senate. They will begin to do what they can to try to defeat him because they fear he can't win the election and, moreover, he may drag many down to defeat with him. He has a lot of work to do to change their minds. I'm not sure he can.

And George F. Will, another guy who isn't keen on a second Obama Administration:

Here’s a small sliver of a silver lining for Mitt Romney: All across the county this morning, people are waking up who are running for office as Republicans – from dog-catcher to Senate – and they’re saying, ‘good God, Newt Gingrich might be at top of this ticket.’ And that can’t make them happy.

If Romney doesn't turn things around, and gets trounced in Florida the way he lost in South Carolina, then the case for a brokered convention becomes extremely strong, and we are likely to see some moves being made that we have not seen in our lifetimes; like "favorite son" candidates running to gather delegates in order to deny Gingrich a majority before the convention.

And I for one will applaud these efforts.

I am convinced (and I am hardly alone in this) that if Newton Leroy Gingrich is the nominee, the party is headed for the worst defeat since 1964.

NOT because of his supposed "conservatism". (and there are plenty of hardcore right-wingers like Ann Coulter, Glen Beck and Michael Savage who will dispute his credentials on that score.)

We can win with a "principled conservative"; Ronald Reagan certainly proved that.

But we CAN NOT win with a strident, humorless candidate (as I've said before, if there's such a thing as "anti-charisma" Newt Gingrich has got it) given to saying things off-brand things that will allow the incumbent's campaign to portray him as "scary" and too "erratic" (a dog whistle phrase to independents that means "crazy") to be entrusted with the Presidency.

That is exactly what happened with Barry Goldwater in 1964, (and Goldwater was a far more decent and honorable man than Gingrich.)

If we really want to take advantage of what should be an excellent opportunity to win back the Presidency, and Romney doesn't doesn't have the ass to swing it, (Chris Christie, a couple of days ago, gave a far better spin and argument for Romney's time at Bain Capital in just one go, than Romney himself has in 20 tries) then a way has to be found to stop Gingrich and replace him with another alternative.

[Lord Jim]

Ordinarily, the prospect of a brokered convention would be considered a nightmare...

A messy, PR disaster...that is almost certain to leave a lot of internal resentment and hurt feelings among party activists,, no matter how it turns out...

I would never have thought that I could be in favor of such a thing; and the idea that it would seem
attractive in a year when we're running against a President this vulnerable is truly mind boggling...

But if the alternative is to nominate a man who can bring us the worse defeat since '64, then I say bring it on.

ETA:

And for those who need a little reminder of just how bad that election was:

Nominee Lyndon B. Johnson Barry Goldwater
Party Democratic Republican
Electoral vote 486 52
States carried 44 + DC 6
Popular vote 43,127,041 27,175,754
Percentage 61.1% 38.5%

Senate:

The United States Senate election in 1964 coincided with the election of President Lyndon B. Johnson by an overwhelming majority. His Democratic Party picked up a net two seats from the Republicans. As of 2008, this is the last time either party has had a two-thirds majority in the Senate, although with a Democratic president the ability to override a veto or to impeach a President was not particularly relevant. However, since invoking cloture still required a two-thirds majority, the Democratic majority was able to overcome any filibuster, providing that party loyalty held. (As it did not in the case of civil rights bills.)

Compared to the devastating House races, Republican losses in the Senate were relatively few. This was because only nine of the 35 seats up for election had Republican incumbents. [that's an excellent parallel; in this election cycle, 23 of of 33 seats up for election are held by Democrats; winning the Senate ought to be a cake walk, even if we don't win the Presidency. But with Gingrich at top of the ticket, even with all those advantages, he could lose so badly in swing states, that we would actually lose seats]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Sta ... ions,_1964

House:

Democrats Republicans
Last election 258 seats 176 seats

1964:
Seats won 295 140
Seat change +37 -36
Popular vote 37,487,445 27,908,176
Percentage 56.9% 42.4%

ETA II:

I apologize for the bad spacing on those numbers, but since there are only two columns to compare it should be easy to sort out and I don't have time to mess with it.

[Joe Guy]

If we really want to take advantage of what should be an excellent opportunity to win back the Presidency, and Romney doesn't doesn't have the ass to swing it, (Chris Christie, a couple of days ago, gave a far better spin and argument for Romney's time at Bain Capital in just one go, than Romney himself has in 20 tries) then a way has to be found to stop Gingrich and replace him with another alternative.

Kinda pathetic isn't it?

Out of all the people of the Republican party - or any other so-called political party, there is nobody to be found that demonstrates potential to win the presidency (and deserve it) - or even to win the R-Primary at this point.

If Obama is as bad as so many people claim him to be, then why aren't there at least several choice candidates available with enough support to give confidence to the R party that one of them could easily win the election?

Easy answer.

Because there isn't a wannabee in sight that is a better choice than Obama.

So, when Obama is re-elected, instead of doing everything we can to work with him and support at least some of his goals, compromise on others and try to improve the state of the U.S., the republicans will continue to attempt to block anything he supports and keep things at a stalemate.

American politics. Isn't it great how things have progressed?

[Lord Jim]

Because there isn't a wannabee in sight that is a better choice than Obama.

I vigorously disagree Joe...

Off the top of my head I can think of several GOP candidates who would be far stronger against Obama than the bunch that actually got in...

They didn't get in, either because they didn't realize that Obama would be as vulnerable as he is at the time that they would have had to realistically make the decision, or because the process has become so humiliating and trivializing that they didn't want to subject themselves or their families to it....

[Joe Guy]

Because there isn't a wannabee in sight that is a better choice than Obama.

I vigorously disagree Joe...

Off the top of my head I can think of several GOP candidates who would be far stronger against Obama than the bunch that actually got in...

They didn't get in, either because they didn't realize that Obama would be as vulnerable as he is at the time that they would have had to realistically make the decision, or because the process has become so humiliating and trivializing that they didn't want to subject themselves or their families to it....

Maybe I should have said willing wannabee?

[Long Run]

In this thread and elsewhere it is stated that a moderate Republican candidate (e.g., Romney) has no better chance as a conservative candidate (e.g., Gingrich or Santorum), so the R's should nominate the conservative candidate that can excite the base. Moderate Rs have not lost elections because they were moderate -- they lost because they stunk at running a campaign. Bob Dole was uninspiring not because his policies were a dud with the Right, he was just uninspiring as a presidential candidate. Ditto McCain. (Interesting that both have commendable personal histories to go with their blah national campaigns). Bush 41 was slightly better as a campaigner but he was no great shakes either (and benefited by being Reagan's third term and a weak D opponent). Unfortunately, Romney seems to be about as effective as Dole or McCain -- which is a rational reason to gnash teeth about his likely nomination.

Is it nice to have a candidate who can articulate conservative principles as well as Gingrich (if you are an R)? Sure. But what if that person had an even more disliked past than Gingrich? At what point does a person determine that the candidate's "baggage" is too much? How many times does the person have to demonstrate that they either do not have or are at best on the very edge of having an acceptable presidential temperament? If Gingrich gets on the national stage as a guy who could actually be president and the avalanche of his negative history (for which he is solely to blame) will bury him and his party.

And on the subject of articulating a viewpoint and vision -- this nomination process has been tailor made for someone with Gingrich's skills at the quasi-debate. You want to know who else was excellent in this venue: the guy who was clearly the best debater in the 2000 and 2004 campaigns -- Dick Cheney (he blew Joe Lieberman and John Edwards off the stage). Guess what? No one wants him for president. Who else was a crack debater? Nixon -- anyone want him (if he could be brought back to life)? A candidate has to show competence at these debate events (Bush 43 just cleared the hurdle), but they don't have to excel in order to be a good candidate.

What most Republicans want is someone who has Romney's or Huntsman's personality traits and Gingrich's ability to get people fired up. Unfortunately, someone like that is not running for the R's this year. I'm with LJ on the conclusion that Gingrich would be a disaster for the party in this election. Romney at least would not drag everyone else down with him, and might rise to the occasion as a candidate.

[Gob]

Ok I'll bite; "brokered convention"?

Go on make my day, tell me what this "brokered convention" is, you know how much I love American politics!

[Lord Jim]

What most Republicans want is someone who has Romney's or Huntsman's personality traits and Gingrich's ability to get people fired up.

That reminded me of something I said on this board about a year ago...

What we really need...

Is a Dr. Frankenstein who can create a candidate with Newt Gingrich's intellect, Mike Huckabee's likability, Haley Barbour's managerial skills, and John Thune's rugged good looks....

Now That's a winner....

Gingrich would be a disaster for the party in this election. Romney at least would not drag everyone else down with him, and might rise to the occasion as a candidate.

That's exactly right...

If Romney is the nominee, he might or might not win, but win or lose, we could still hold the House, and given the breakdown on the seats, even take the Senate....

With Gingrich, the Democrats could very easily run the table...

And it's about time that those of my Republican Brethren who think that Gingrich will win because he says things that they like to hear, and that huge numbers of independents will magically want to hear the same things and rally to Newt's side, put down the pipe and face reality....

It ain't the Democrats who fear a Gingrich nomination...(they're salivating at the prospect)

It's the Republicans....

At least the ones who know something about how this process works, or who know enough about their district or state to realize that Gingrich starts every morning by spraying himself with a big can of Swing Voter Repellant

It's not the " Party Establishment" that the "the more a candidate says things I like to hear the more likely he is to win the election" bunch are "giving the the finger to" by voting to make Gingrich the nominee...

It's the party's electoral prospects in November that they are flipping off.

[Lord Jim]

Ok I'll bite; "brokered convention"?

To state it simply and briefly Strop:

No candidate comes into the convention with a majority of delegates pledged to vote for them on the first ballot.

A majority of the delegate votes are required to be nominated. At this point, the delegates are free to vote for whom ever they choose on successive ballots; the person who finished first on the first ballot, another candidate who ran, or someone else entirely.

The convention is then said to be "brokered" by the delegates themselves, no longer bound to vote for the candidates they were originally pledged to. (As a practical matter, the party leadership would play an extremely important role at this point.)

To give you an idea of how rare this is in modern American politics, the last time a Presidential nomination for either major party went beyond one ballot was for the GOP in 1952.

I could go into a much more complicated discussion of the history of American Presidential nominating conventions, (brokered conventions used to be the rule; the idea of voters directly selecting slates of delegates bound to individual candidates in primaries or caucuses is relatively new; it only really started to become common in 1960) but I'm afraid that too big a dose of info about our unique and ecclectic Presidential nominating process at one time might cause your head to explode ....

[Gob]

Or i could actually bust a gut laughing, thanks for sparing me!

You guys sure don't like doing things the easy way, do you?