Gingrich Dips a Toe Into 2012
Tags: 2012 Campaign, Bobby Jindal, Mike Huckabee, Mitt Romney, Newt Gingrich.
Click here to get Caucus of Corruption: The Truth About The New Democratic Majority by Matt Margolis and Mark Noonan.
The news story:
Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich said Thursday he’d seriously consider running for president in 2012.
With the mantle of the Republican Party still unclaimed, Gingrich told reporters in Ashland, Va., before a speech to Randolph-Macon College that he and his family would examine the political environment in early 2011, and “look seriously at whether or not we think it’s necessary to do it.”
“And if we think it’s necessary we’ll probably do it. And if it isn’t necessary we probably won’t do it,” he said, according to the Richmond Times-Dispatch.
Certainly, Gingrich is one of the most intelligent men in American politics, but I think his negatives are waaaay too high for him to actually win, should he secure the nomination. On the other hand, he’d swiftly raise the level of debate in the GOP primary were he to run, even if he didn’t get the nomination. And if Obama is riding high in 2012 (highly unlikely), then a Gingrich campaign would shred Obama, even if Obama won in the end – nothing like having a real intellect take on a phony like Obama.
Thank you for visiting Blogs For Victory. If you enjoy our content, please consider making a donation to help us cover the costs of our servers.Mark Noonan is co-author (with Matt Margolis) of Caucus of Corruption: The Truth About The New Democratic Majority. He also blogs at Nevada News and Views. Follow Mark on Twitter.
35 Responses to “Gingrich Dips a Toe Into 2012”
Caucus of Corruption
but I think his negatives are waaaay too high for him to actually win
Give me a break. The problem with politics today is that we personally crucify those who do run, which makes people who should be in office, not want to run. And then we complain that we have incompetent people in office, and that nobody worth voting for is running.
Gingrich should run, in fact I was hoping that he would last time, to hell with the negatives.
We need competent people in office, not prima donnas.
he might have played a role in the contract with america….but i dont think he has enough in him to do it…however…if he ran as vp w/palin i doubt the donkeyrats would be able to handle it
2. js02 | March 7th, 2009 at 8:55 am
palin/gingrich would not attract indies & consequently would loose nor have coat tails for congressional or state candidates.
but hey, if it makes the shrinking base happy then go ahead.
talk about a bridge to nowhere……you betcha!
IMHO, New Gingrich is one of the most politically savvy, articulate and historically knowledgeable individuals in the political arena today. The Contract With America was, undeniably, a stroke of strategic genius unmatched in my lifetime.
A lot of Newt’s negatives stem from one political manuever, the standoff against Slick that shut down the government in the fall of ‘95. It was a calculated risk that Gingrich lost to a guy who is even more politically savvy than he is. Dick Morris was discussing on O’Reilly the other night how they (he worked for Clinton at the time) had used Gingrich’s unpopularity to their advantage in the ‘96 election. They couldn’t dig up any dirt on Dole, and Kemp was even cleaner both personally and politically, so they made the campaign about Dole-Gingrich — and it worked, plus it contributed to a strong negative view of Gingrich that continues to this day. I would bet, if you asked 100 people on the street what they thought of Newt, you’d get a 60 or 70% disapproval, but I’ll also bet that 90% of those disapproving couldn’t tell you why.
I agree the Newt would be a good choice based on his smarts. He definitely is a lot smarter than some of your other choices.
The prospect of a twice divorced admitted adulterer leading the ticket of the “family values” party would give bring irony to a new level.
3. ohioorrin |
just like a liar from chicago couldnt get elected…isnt that amazing?
Cap,
Do you ever tire of digesting and regurgitating talking points?
Spook,
You are correct, but that has never stopped a Democrat. It is time the GOP grows a spine and stop ignore the incessant rants from the whiny, self involved, socialistic, hypocritic liberals, like Cap.
In the words of Cheney, Gingrich should tell them to “Go F&^K themselves”
In the words of Cheney, Gingrich should tell them to “Go F&^K themselves”…cluster
—————————
Yes, absolutely, that would definitely guarantee Gingrich a win.
Mimic Cheney, the most loved VP of all time. LOL.
6. js02 | March 7th, 2009 at 9:52 am
and ur point is?
they’re all liars, always have been.
1. cluster | March 7th, 2009 at 7:38 am
You are absolutely right about the Right attacking its own after their imperfection is revealed. The problem Gingrich, possibly the most intellectual among the old guard GOP today, is that he is a part of the “old guard” from the Copntract with America, which many Moderates now see as a “Contract on America.”
Sort of OT, but germane to the political landscape, my wife and I made a trip from Indiana to Kansas last month to visit our oldest daughter, and, political junkie that I am, I evesdropped on conversations at every possible opportunity — at gas stations, restaurants on the trip out and back, at retail stores; even the barber shop where I got my hair cut while we were there. IMO, we are on the cusp of a massive sea change of public opinion WRT our political leaders.
While in Kansas we visited Cabela’s (for you Libs — the largest national chain of outdoor outfitters) on the west side of KC. Wandering through the gun section. I caught bits and pieces of conversations from both customers and clerks, none of which were very complimentary to our new CIC. I heard one guy buying ammunition actually ask a clerk point blank how much longer that section of the store would be open given the anti-gun stance of the new administration. I heard another guy say that he had never placed a lot of trust in our government, but this was the first time in his life he had actually feared the government. I had a similar conversation with a couple guys in the locker room of the YMCA this week after my workout. People who have never given politics or government much though are starting to sit up and take notice of the direction the country is headed, and they’re not liking what they’re seeing. It remains to be seen whether or not there will be a truly seismic shift, and, of course, it depends to a large extent on whether or not the Dems continue to over-reach (and overspend), and by how much.
7. cluster
So you think a twice-divorced admitted adulterer should head the “family values” ticket, then?
“contract on America.”
bloch, how long did it take you to dig up that tired old talking point?
Using a answer that libs are throwing around these days, “we won, get over it”. The same could be said to the socialist Democrats regarding the Contract with America. The American People spoke then how they wanted their government run and that contract was successful until Pelosi/Reid/Obamateur came to power and began putting everything back to the way it was – business as usual once again for the socialists. Now wonder they are happy – they can write a blank check during this “crisis” and at the same time passed rules to disallow Republicans from introducing amendments to the legislation.
oralndo, you thought a repeat adulterer was the head of the Democratic ticket during the 90s and made excuses for him. Your hypocrisy now is just as predictable as your talking points.
How are those two simple questions coming from the other thread? I think you are trying to avoid them.
oralndo, you thought a repeat adulterer was the head of the Democratic ticket during the 90s and made excuses for him.
Silly tiredoflibbs, everyone knows that adultery only reflects negatively on Republicans.
oralndo, you thought a repeat adulterer was the head of the Democratic ticket during the 90s and made excuses for him. Your hypocrisy now is just as predictable as your talking points.
Actually, I’ve never said a word about Clinton. But it’s also worth pointing out that the GOP is the party that makes a huge stink about “superior morals” and “family values” and all that. Newt Gingrich tried to take the moral high road against Clinton while doing the exact same thing Clinton did. Both were wrong; Gingrich just threw some top-notch hypocrisy on top of his wrongdoing, which seems to be a right-wing specialty. “Values” and “morals” don’t mean nearly as much as GOP bluster would have you believe, but that’s been evident for a long time. Some are just slower to acknowledge it than others.
Finally, you should learn what the term “talking points” means. Much like you do with the word “socialism,” you throw it around without having an understanding of what it is.
12. orlando | March 7th, 2009 at 1:08 pm
Obama+Biden= 0 divorces
Gingrich+Limbaugh =5 divorces
Okay tiredoflibbs let’s get a show of hands were things better in 1996 or in 2004?
“Actually, I’ve never said a word about Clinton.” Well, duh (so you could understand). I did. There was no outrage a Clinton’s adulteries, there was defense. Gingrich at least divorced his wives, while Clinton continually humiliated his wife.
At the time, I lived in Louisiana. Livingston was set to become the Senate majority leader. He resigned as an example of “morals” and “values” when he revealed he had an affair. Too bad liberals refuse do the same. They know that their fellow members and dummed down constituents will defend them without question.
You still talking about “socialism”? I gave you the definition verbatim and showed how it applied and you did the typical regurgitation of talking points and spin. Yes, I do know what talking points are, but it is apparent that you do not, just like socialism.
You still have not answered the two simple question in the other thread. Why is that? I’ll remind you:
1) What form of government do we have?
2) Do we have a legal right to vote for President?
Simple questions, but you seem to be dodging away from them. Answer them – your answers will be time stamped. They are easy. But as evidenced by your posts you are afraid of knowledge and education, since you were educated in a government school.
How about Gingrich and Giuliani (in either order) in 2012? That ought to be a hoot.
I especially liked this comment: “At least Gingrich divorced his wives.” And of course nah, he didn’t humiliate them. Well, not all that much maybe. Okay, maybe one. But not so much the other.
Goodness, that’s rich.
If the economy continues to go downhill and the stimulus package doesn’t help, individuals for conservative economics such as Giuliani should have a good chance at this. I think that if it reaches that point, people wouldn’t care less about divorces or whatever so long as the person has a clue about how to make us prosper.
Let’s hope we don’t pull an Obama and blame every single thing that’s wrong with the world on the last president and his party, though. I’d hate to see history repeat itself, even if my vengeful side would like to see that happen.
Who cares about divorce? Throw the bitches out on the street where they belong.
I only care about the finances and the idiot currently in the white house doesn’t know how to manage the economy. So let him stay with his drag queen wife forever, for all I care and let’s elect someone who knows how to run a business, irregardless if he has ten divorces.
casper
The prospect of a twice divorced admitted adulterer leading the ticket of the “family values” party would give bring irony to a new level.
What do we have today?
A cocain using limo riding closet homosexual.
A man who belonged to a racist cult, and cavorted with mob figures, and terrorists.
Slic the IMPEACHED, disbarred, convicted, sexual molester.
Irony? you people are the gold standard of insanity.
You still talking about “socialism”?
I’m hoping against the odds that you’ll eventually learn what it means and therefore learn why your usage of it is incorrect, but your hostility to education and knowledge makes it nearly impossible for such a thing to come to pass. It’s unfortunate that you would demand capitulation to ignorance, but such is the modern wingnut, I suppose.
Why do you hate education, anyway? Does it frighten you? Humiliate you?
oralndo,
I am hoping you will answer the questions asked of you, instead of this constant dodging. And, I am also amazed at the false and unfounded accusations you have directed towards me to keep dodging those questions.
I do not have to demand your capitulation to ignorance. You demonstrate your neverending ignorance in each and every post.
Please answer the questions posed to you if you can. But the more I ask, the more you avoid proving again that you are a product of the liberal failing government schools. The only thing that humiliates me is that there are people such as yourself that give a bad example to the citizenry (if you are a citizen) of this country to others around the world that read this blog.
Wise up or continue to live in your denials.
I am also amazed at the false and unfounded accusations you have directed towards me
It’s not my fault you hate education. In fact, I wish you didn’t.
oralndo,
again with the false accusations and the dodging.
Where have I stated that I hate education? – again with the delusions and the denials!
Why do you refuse to answer the two very simple questions I have asked of you?
I am beginning to think that you are just that ignorant and enforce the premise that you are a victim of a government school. You are must really be ashamed hence your animosity and refusal to answer.
Not hatred, just stating facts.
orlando is merely employing the strategy his “educators” have brainwashed him with, and that is to identify, target, demonize and marginalize. It is the same tactics tyrants employ, to eliminate the competition.
Instead of answering the questions, he has grabs onto a label to demonize with; “education”, and uses that label to ridicule and distract, in the absence of his ability to respond.
It’s transparent and predictable, and clearly shows the obstacles that are in front of us; a long line of indictrinated brown shirts.
It is the same tactics tyrants employ, to eliminate the competition.
Oh, that’s right–you think making fun of you wingnuts is “fascist.” I had forgotten what a *ahem* feline you are.
Not hatred, just stating facts.
Exactly–I don’t hate you for hating education, I just think it’s unfortunate that you do.
As for this, I may as well do you a favor and tell you what’s been plainly obvious:
Why do you refuse to answer the two very simple questions I have asked of you?
I’m not answering your simple little questions because it’s really funny how much your panties are in a twist about it. You’re so angry that I don’t even have to do anything to get you to start freaking out, and that is quite humorous.
Thank you orlando for the juvenile reponse. You have solidified your ignorant liberal cred.
oralndo,
The only coward here is you. You cannot answer. Your comments are always “it is ironic….”, twisting of the facts, out of context comments, etc. etc.
You are an embarrassment to all on this blog and those members from around the world are laughing at you and they assume the rest of the population is just like you. You, along with the Obamateur, make us a laughing stock when it comes to education.
I love education! It the means by which I have been able to prosper, unlike you and your ilk who depend on government for everything. The only animosity I see is your projections of hatred towards others who are more fortunate than you because of your self-imposed limitations.
You know…. those who can’t do, teach and those who can do neither rely on government. Proudly count yourself among the latter group.
The only animosity I see is your projections of hatred towards others who are more fortunate than you because of your self-imposed limitations.
You are an embarrassment to all on this blog and those members from around the world are laughing at you and they assume the rest of the population is just like you. You … make us a laughing stock when it comes to education.
I wouldn’t point out the irony so much if you didn’t wallow in it so much. Do you even see it?
wow, oralndo, predictable and true to form as usual.
Thanks for proving my points.
Continue in your denial. Obviously, you are happy there.
Poor oralndo, cannot make a coherent argument and answer two simple questions.
“just like a liar from chicago couldnt get elected” js
Too bad js, only in your mind. Luckily, the way you see the world isn’t reality. Lucky for the rest of us.
Intelligence without values – that is what you get with Gingrich.
Just watch him lurch to and fro, lured by the power of the presidency yet knowing that his moral failings would be his undoing. On Thursday he said he would be seriously consider running for president and then today on Meet the Press he said it would be too early to even discuss the issue. This after pointing out the wealth of leadership in the Republican Party – hilarious.
On another point, notice how Gingrich called out Limbaugh on Meet the Press. It will be interesting to see if he apologizes. I suspect he won’t.