Candidate News Thread - Newt Gingrich

[Argyle58]

Winnowing the Field

We fear that to nominate former Speaker Newt Gingrich, the frontrunner in the polls, would be to blow this opportunity. We say that mindful of his opponents’ imperfections — and of his own virtues, which have been on display during his amazing comeback. Very few people with a personal history like his — two divorces, two marriages to former mistresses — have ever tried running for president. Gingrich himself has never run for a statewide office, let alone a national one, and has not run for anything since 1998. That year he was kicked out by his colleagues, the most conservative ones especially, who had lost confidence in him. During his time as Speaker, he was one of the most unpopular figures in public life. Just a few months ago his campaign seemed dead after a series of gaffes and resignations. That Gingrich now tops the polls is a tribute to his perseverance, and to Republicans’ admiration for his intellectual fecundity.

 

 

From National Review.

 

While it is true that very few people with Newt's personal history have ever tried running for President, there are precedents. We will even leave Bill Clinton out of the equation.

 

Grover Cleveland is the only person to serve two non sequential terms as president. The reason for the break between terms was that during his 1888 re-election campaign it became known that he had fathered an illegitimate child in 1874 with Maria Halpin. Cleveland denied that he was the father and lost his re-election bid.

 

Subsequent to the election Cleveland admitted to the affair and recognized the child and, supposedly, made reparations to Ms. Halpin (there is some debate as to this). He again ran for, and won, the office of President in 1892 based in part for his "show of character" for showing personal responsibility for his mistakes.

 

It should be remarked that Cleveland was a Democrat.....the only Dem to be elected during the Republican dominance of 1860 to 1912. History seems to show that Democrats do get a pass in these areas, but they do certainly set some bizarre precedents.

 

So, if it was okay for a Democrat during the Victorian era, why should Newt be vilified for similar behavior (again, we are ignoring Bill Clinton) in this day of looser moral standards?

[Valin]

Winnowing the Field

We fear that to nominate former Speaker Newt Gingrich, the frontrunner in the polls, would be to blow this opportunity. We say that mindful of his opponents’ imperfections — and of his own virtues, which have been on display during his amazing comeback. Very few people with a personal history like his — two divorces, two marriages to former mistresses — have ever tried running for president. Gingrich himself has never run for a statewide office, let alone a national one, and has not run for anything since 1998. That year he was kicked out by his colleagues, the most conservative ones especially, who had lost confidence in him. During his time as Speaker, he was one of the most unpopular figures in public life. Just a few months ago his campaign seemed dead after a series of gaffes and resignations. That Gingrich now tops the polls is a tribute to his perseverance, and to Republicans’ admiration for his intellectual fecundity.

 

 

From National Review.

 

While it is true that very few people with Newt's personal history have ever tried running for President, there are precedents. We will even leave Bill Clinton out of the equation.

 

Grover Cleveland is the only person to serve two non sequential terms as president. The reason for the break between terms was that during his 1888 re-election campaign it became known that he had fathered an illegitimate child in 1874 with Maria Halpin. Cleveland denied that he was the father and lost his re-election bid.

 

Subsequent to the election Cleveland admitted to the affair and recognized the child and, supposedly, made reparations to Ms. Halpin (there is some debate as to this). He again ran for, and won, the office of President in 1892 based in part for his "show of character" for showing personal responsibility for his mistakes.

 

It should be remarked that Cleveland was a Democrat.....the only Dem to be elected during the Republican dominance of 1860 to 1912. History seems to show that Democrats do get a pass in these areas, but they do certainly set some bizarre precedents.

 

So, if it was okay for a Democrat during the Victorian era, why should Newt be vilified for similar behavior (again, we are ignoring Bill Clinton) in this day of looser moral standards?

 

 

A. This is....unhelpful to the Gingrich campaign.

B. It appears to me that while they don't really like anyone, but they really don't like Newt.

[Valin]

COMMENTS 407

 

Wow! Can't remember the last time an NRO editorial got this number of replies.

 

Javier Garcia

: 12/15/11 00:31

 

Open-jawed amazement describes my reaction to this screaming diatribe: can Rich Lowry ever be seen the same after this pre-emptive hit piece, weeks before the first vote is cast, one night before the last debate leading up to that vote, which displays all the calm temper and strategic savvy of...intemperate, self-destructive Newt.

 

If only to hone and refine the important differences between Romney and Gingrich, NR/NRO should have held back its fury about Gingrich for now. Perhaps it was to much to expect: for two weeks now the steady drumbeat of articles laid the premise for an eventual takedown, and it has risen now two or three elections and several debates too early to a crescendo, with a disqualifying attack on Gingrich.

 

This is all very disheartening. You argue that the election must be about big ideas not personality, and about the direction of the country. So we have Gingrich, who is personally flawed, by turns dazzling and annoying, and often infuriating but can eloquently articulate a non-socialist, non-collectivist future for the country. And we have Romney, with his Romneycare, his states-rights defense of the personal mandate, his expedient inconsistencies on social issues, his undoubted intelligence, business success and jittery articulateness, but...his utter lack of stomach for an ideological fight and his penchant to view all problems as managerial.

 

And if Gingrich wins the nomination?

 

If he does pull this out and wins the nomination--and the hysterical headline of this editorial will surely anger a lot of conservatives into supporting Gingrich just to make a point against a perceived establishment bias--I'll be interested to see what contortions NR and NRO go through to recommend a vote against Obama.

 

randfan

: 12/14/11 23:05

 

One of the chief weapons with which to attack Obama is the extent of the corruption within the administration. Solyndra, hc waivers, f and f, etc. The center of this country is looking for someone with high ethical standards who hasn't been associated with the DC oligarchy.

 

Gingrich's lobbying efforts for Freddie only reinforce the independent's view of him as a DC insider willing to sell his principles to make a buck. It also rebuts the GOP argument that Fannie abuses are to blame for the mortgage mess.

 

Gingrich is also closely associated with the partisan rancor which has plagued DC for the last quarter century. This was candidate Obama's main theme. The earlier poster who said he will be too easily painted as extreme and uncomprimising is right.

 

Additionally, his two marriages to mistresses will not sit well with indie women and conservative women. Some may feel this is not fair game but , they are being naive. The left will trump that up and say it's an example of hypocrisy by the family values voters to vote for a man with that track record.

 

Romney does not have this baggage. He is a DC outsider, not invoved in the banking fiasco, not an ideologue or partisan, not Obama! We've got to get behind the electable GOP candidate or we get 4 more more years of this corrupt thugocracy.

[Valin]

[Valin]

Hot Air: WaPo’s hit job on Gingrich

Ed Morrissey

12/16/11

 

Today’s Washington Post carries a story about a “curious case in the annals of the FBI,” but the only curious aspect of the story is why the Post published it — with the headline FBI considered a sting aimed at Newt Gingrich in 1997. That implies that the arguable GOP frontrunner for President had committed some sort of conduct that was shady enough to get the FBI to propose an Abscam-like operation to take Gingrich down. However, that’s not the case at all, but you have to get past the lead paragraph to figure that out:

 

(Snip)

 

So, let’s get this straight. The FBI heard second- and third-hand that an arms dealer was bragging about having connections to Gingrich, who would singlehandedly lift the arms embargo on Saddam Hussein’s Iraq, even though the Speaker had very little power to impact it, because a “cooperating witness” told them that he talked to someone who said he was acting on Marianne Gingrich’s behalf. On the basis of this, the FBI thought about doing a “sting” on Gingrich, but passed on it because they had no evidence that Gingrich even knew any of this was taking place.

 

 

(Snip)

 

Marianne Gingrich calls this “hogwash,” and it’s not to difficult to see why. She and Gingrich had been married 14 years by the time of this meeting in 1995, and they’d be divorced five years later, so it doesn’t appear that Gingrich was terribly afraid of “skeletons” nor she of life after divorce. Furthermore, she had a job that paid her well and involved enough trust for her employer to send her to Paris to drum up investment business, which makes the claim that she was so dependent on her husband that she couldn’t afford to leave him look somewhat preposterous. In fact, if you read the DC Bureau’s story, Marianne says that the biggest economic problem in their household was Newt himself, who wasn’t very disciplined about handling the family finances.

 

(Snip)

 

 

 

 

Photo from the Washington Post story

 

Gee I wonder what they are implying?

[saveliberty]

H/T Legal Insurrection

 

Andrew C. McCarthy

National Review Online

 

December 17, 2011 4:00 A.M.

Gingrich’s Virtues

It is too early to rule out candidates.

 

I respectfully dissent from National Review’s Wednesday-evening editorial, which derided Newt Gingrich as not merely flawed but unfit for consideration as the GOP presidential nominee. The Editors further gave the back of the hand to the bids of two other prominent conservatives, Rick Perry and Michele Bachmann — a judgment that is simply inexplicable in light of the frivolousness of its reasoning and of the Editors’ embrace of Jon Huntsman, a moderate former Obama-administration official, as a serious contender.

 

The editorial surprised me, as it did many readers. I am now advised that the timing was driven by the editorial’s inclusion in the last edition of the magazine to be published this year, which went to press on Wednesday. The Editors believe, unwisely in my view, that before the first caucuses and primaries begin in early January, it is important to make known their insights — not merely views about the relative merits of the candidates but conclusions that some candidates are no longer worthy of having their merits considered. Like many other voters, I haven’t settled on a candidate. What I want at this very early stage is information about the candidates so I can consider them, not a presumptuous and premature pronouncement that good conservatives do not even rate consideration.

[Valin]

H/T Legal Insurrection

 

Andrew C. McCarthy

National Review Online

 

December 17, 2011 4:00 A.M.

Gingrich’s Virtues

It is too early to rule out candidates.

 

I respectfully dissent from National Review’s Wednesday-evening editorial, which derided Newt Gingrich as not merely flawed but unfit for consideration as the GOP presidential nominee. The Editors further gave the back of the hand to the bids of two other prominent conservatives, Rick Perry and Michele Bachmann — a judgment that is simply inexplicable in light of the frivolousness of its reasoning and of the Editors’ embrace of Jon Huntsman, a moderate former Obama-administration official, as a serious contender.

 

 

Given the tone of the comments,l I'd say this is a wise move.

[WestVirginiaRebel]

Mark Steyn: Gingrich ‘in a benign sense … is a totalitarian’

“If you’re like me and you think, you know your idea of a conservative president is Calvin Coolidge – Newt is actually the antithesis of that. Newt has – what’s his website called, GingrichSolutions.org, American Solutions? He’s got more solutions to stuff that most of us didn’t even know were problems. This is his thing to have giant mirrors in space to light America’s highways by night and reduce the carbon footprint.”

[WestVirginiaRebel]

Newt Gingrichs Crazy Attack on Judges

 

At last nights Republican debate Newt Gingrich, with Michele Bachmann in chorus, heralded a new and unprecedented procedure. In his picture of America under a Gingrich presidency, that Manhattan judge would receive a congressional subpoena to appear and give a sworn explanation of his ruling. Imagine that. A congressional committee with a significant number of right-wing showboaters grill the judge. The first question the Manhattan judge might expect is whether he loves America. The remainder of the show is sufficiently clownish to boost Fox Newss ratings.

 

What Gingrich ignored last night, and what was only noted briefly by Ron Paul, is that under Article III of the Constitution, federal judges are appointed for life. Only personal misconduct can result in impeachment and removal. A judge may not be removed because of decisions with which Republicans disagree. Gingrich should be smart enough to know that subpoenaing judges is neither legal nor workable. But this historian also knows that the Army-McCarthy hearings made for good television.

________

 

It's a valid point. Just how would President Gingrich go about removing Federal judges? And where would this stop? What about the next Democratic president who decided to go after conservative judges? Does a President have the right to go after justices because he disagrees with their legal rulings? As much as I loathe the Ninth Circus, for example, this is why we have an appeals process and why the President has the power to nominate judges he does like.

 

This might have been good red meat for Iowans, but as Presidential policy I don't think it would fly.

[Evad]

Noot jumps the shark once again.

There's a process for improving the judiciary, without turning the place into Nazi Germany.

[Argyle58]

But this historian also knows that the Army-McCarthy hearings made for good television.

 

While this is true, it also lead to McCarthy's downfall. The coverage (ABC and the Dumont network carried them gavel to gavel) so ruined McCarthy's image that he was never again able to get elected to public office.

[Valin]

But this historian also knows that the Army-McCarthy hearings made for good television.

 

While this is true, it also lead to McCarthy's downfall. The coverage (ABC and the Dumont network carried them gavel to gavel) so ruined McCarthy's image that he was never again able to get elected to public office.

 

 

The problem is McCarthy was....flawed. As I recall his drinking was already starting to take effect....but as always I could be wrong on this.

[Valin]

The Campaign Spot: Newt Gingrich’s Big Gamble on the Judiciary’s Role

Jim Geraghty

12/19/11

 

Also addressed in today’s Jolt is Newt Gingrich’s comments over the weekend, suggesting that as president, he would abolish whole courts to be rid of judges whose decisions he feels are out of step with the country and that Congress has the power to dispatch the Capitol Police or U.S. Marshals to apprehend a federal judge who renders a decision lawmakers broadly oppose.

 

 

(Snip)

 

“Face the Nation” host Bob Schieffer presses the example of Obamacare, and asks whether if the Supreme Court rules it unconstitutional, whether President Obama could simply ignore the decision and “go ahead and implement it.” Gingrich responds, “He could try to do that. And the Congress would then cut him off. Here’s the key — it’s always two out of three. If the president and the congress say the court is wrong, in the end the court would lose.”

 

(Snip)

 

The appeal of Gingrich’s rethinking of the role of the judiciary is clear in the examples he cites, like a judge attempting to criminalize any reference to God in a public graduation ceremony. But the result would be a federal government even more subject to the whims of popular opinion and election winners. In January 2009, conservatives knew that the ambitions of the Obama administration and its Congressional allies faced at least the backstop of the Roberts Court (at least on the days Justice Kennedy agreed). What is popular and what is constitutional are not always the same, and the role of the court today, for all of its flaws, includes separating the two. Gingrich’s approach may seem appealing when we witness egregious examples of judicial activism – but if conservatives as a whole endorsed it, the approach would represent a major gamble that liberal Democrats would never again get complete control of the legislature and executive.

 

 

Two points

A. For better or worse Newt Gingrich is driving this primary campaign season, and has for the last two (?) months And he has done this with ideas.

B. What he is saying is a rebalancing of the three branches of the federal government is needed, he is saying the judicial branch has gotten too powerful, and I agree.

 

 

* Note: I have no problem with any of the other candidates and would gladly with a song in my heart vote for any of them...with one exception, Ron Paul

 

 

Addendum: What (IMO) we need to understand is he is not just running to win the Presidency, but also (as he has said many times) to defeat the secular/socialist state...ie destroy the post 1968 Democrat party. * One of the reasons I like him, is his over all view fits in with something I see, we are in the middle of a debate as a people, Quo Vadis, what kind of country do we want? The same old same old, the road we have been going down for 100 years, or trying something different a smaller [/b]limited federal government[/b]. Being an historian I think he see's this, and want's to change things.

one mans opinion freely given and worth almost that much.

[Valin]

OMG Hamas ally says Newt is a (shudder) Zionist!

[Valin]

Misleading Title Alert

 

[Valin]

Romney turns down Gingrich debate challenge out of ‘respect’ for rest of field

Joshua Altman - 12/22/11

 

 

Mitt Romney rejected an offer for a two-man debate with Republican presidential rival Newt Gingrich out of "respect" to other candidates in the race.

 

“I’m not gonna narrow this down to a two-person race while there’s still a number of other candidates that are viable, important candidates in the race, and I want to show respect to them,” Romney said.

 

 

TAS Has an interesting take

[Valin]

[Valin]

[Argyle58]

You've go to admit, no matter who you are supporting, that Newt is the best debater of the field. As for defending himself, well, all of these videos speak for themselves.

[Valin]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=avKgaLQX-SA

[Valin]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7EApRHZ1WAc

[Valin]

Why I like Newt!

 

 

Big well thought out Ideas

[Valin]

A Best Of Newt...

[Valin]

Billionaire Adelson gives millions to Gingrich Super PAC

James V. Grimaldi

January 7 2012

 

 

 

Casino mogul Sheldon Adelson has given $5 million to an independent committee supporting GOP presidential aspirant Newt Gingrich, the first of what is expected to be many millions the Las Vegas billionaire plans to spend this election year.

 

The check from Adelson is the latest in an avalanche of campaign cash flooding the presidential season to independent groups known as Super PACs The check was cut on Friday to Winning Our Future, a group run by former Gingrich associates, according to two people close to the donor.

 

(Snip)

 

One person close to Adelson said that more money could go to the Super PAC depending on “how Newt does in the South Carolina primary, which is presumed to be Newt’s last stand.” Until the past week, Gingrich had been leading in polls in South Carolina, but the most recent surveys have put former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney ahead in the Palmetto State.

 

(Snip)

[Valin]