Redstate

Gingrich certainly has the capability to sell himself as that to the GOP grassroots.  Whether or not he's effectively distanced himself from the personal issues that have dragged him down in the past is a different question.

For my own part, I do think there will be an opening for an implicitly anti-Bush candidate for the 2008 nom - most likely a Governor, who hasn't had to vote on any Bush policies in the prior 4 years, and could run as a "Republicans need to get back to shrinking the size of government, eliminating entitlements, and balancing the budget" candidate.

I could see Pawlenty doing this for one, but I'm sure there are several others.

I have always liked Newt.  In fact I used to be a Libertarian leaning Independent before 1994.  It was the Gingrich Revolution that convinced me to become a Republican.  I don't know if he would be my pick to be the standard bearer for the party in 2008, but you have to admitt that when it comes to balancing the Budget Newt Gingrich is the ONLY politician from ANY party to have true credibility on the issue-  because he ALREADY DID IT!  A big raspberry to all those MSM types who give Clinton the credit.  Anyone who was actually alive at the time knows that it's only because of Gingrich holding together the Republicans in making the political equivalent of Pickett's Charge, (on the issue of balancing the budget), that actualy led to results-  I still shake my head in disbelief of the events of those heady days... imagine, politians actually keeping their word when it is no longer in their own political interest.  It was amazing.

  You are right though Augustine, I'm worried about his personal problems...

seems a little old to me.

But in terms of an interesting, engaging, heated presidential race?

Find me a better one than Newt/Hillary. That's an open challenge to all RedStaters.

I've always liked Newt, but he doesn't seem to have the temperament to be President.  (Didn't really seem to have the temperament to be Speaker, for that matter.) Still, he's a smart conservative with consistently interesting ideas.  I could see him shaping the platform and the tone of the campaign, much like Dean did for the Dems this last go-round, and that would be by no means a bad thing.

Oh:  and Dubya really needs to listen to Gingrich or somebody on immigration reform.  He'll never get a "guest workers" provision passed without tightening up the borders--both of them.

I just saw his book at the bookstore and bought it on a whim.  I see his face on the news every once in a while to give his 2 cents on an issue.

The way I see it, we've got a lot of great Republicans out there.  Any one of them could become our next president.

What we have to ask ourselves is: where do we want to go?

If we nominate a guy like Giuliani, he will (1) Keep us safe, (2) Support an aggressive war on terrorism, (3) Cut funding to liberal pet projects like the National Endowment for the Arts, (4) Appoint conservative judges.

These are all great things.  Plus, Giuliani may be the most electable Republican.

But I have some concerns about whether or not Giuliani will be enthusiastically embraced by Southern conservatives.  He has described himself as "pro-choice," which means the MSM will be champing at the bit to label him as a "flip-flopper" and thereby inflict damage on his credibility if he tries to redefine himself or clarify his position on the issue.

He also supported domestic partnerships for gay couples while he was mayor of NYC.  The MSM will likewise try to pin him down on his stance on gay marriage to facilitate labeling him as a "flip-flopper."

Now, even with all of that, I still think that we can win with Giuliani.  And probably with McCain, too (although I know a lot of Christians who say they will never vote for McCain).

But Gingrich is the kind of candidate who doesn't need to straddle both sides of an argument the way Kerry tried to.

We already know where Gingrich stands on the issues that we care about.

Gingrich is not a moderate trying to placate conservatives the way G.H.W. Bush did successfully in 1988 and unsuccessfully in 1992.  

Gingrich is a true conservative who will motivate the conservative base the way Reagan did in the 80's and W has done the last two elections.

And, no, I don't work for Newt.  But after reading his book, I am considering working for his campaign.

I'm afraid of a Newt/Hillary matchup. Although
many consider them both polarizing figures, I think Hillary would beat Newt. The only Pubbie
I would run against Hillary is Condi. She is a
highly competent solid citizen and would significantly erode Hillary's minority and
women bases. With eroded bases, the Dims
don't have a chance of coming close to winning.

If John Kerry can transform from rich northeastern patrician liberal senator-for-life into a mainstream, credible Democrat candidate for president, then I would not count out Newt's ability to overcome his situation to secure a nomination for president.

I like the 80% approach.  Let's knock out the low-hanging fruit first.  Those just require a populist component to drum up the little people, kinda like what Schwarzenegger is doing.

A video of Newt's speech is available

here

Do you think he has enough of a track record to be a serious candidate?

Newt is great on high strategy and I agree with most of his big picture views.  But with his high negatives and poor tactical judgments, the words "Newt" and "president" shouldn't be in the same sentence.  Liberals will have field days on his inability to stay married, not to mention the intemperate statements that will surely come.

can mention "poor tactical judgements" without pointing out that Newt, for all his faults - was probably the single best political tactician in the country from probably 1988 or so until about late 1995.

 Tactical effectiveness as a legislator or strategist is very different from effectiveness as a presidential candidate.  Would you want Tom DeLay as your nominee?  Or Karl Rove?

Newt has nothing going for him but name recognition, and he has a funny name.  And actually he's a little funny-looking too, which is bad news for a presidential candidate.  Add in his checkered marital history, his past political failures, and his career as a novelist and you get, well, I don't know what you get, but it isn't a viable presidential candidate.  Someone like Chuck Hagel would make short him in the primaries.

not on the Newt bandwagon - just pointing out some history. From legislative victories to long term political victories - Newt can claim more than just bout anyone else.

Nixon had high negatives, but he won in some of the largest landslides...  Of course we were in the middle of the Vietnem War and our society was sufferring the most division in our history since the Civil War...  but still, it shows that at the right time, Newt might be the right canadiate.  I think that IF the lack of a balanced budget becomes the main issue in 2008, and IF Newt can play on his credibility as a budget balancer, THEN Newt Gingrich will be a viable canidiate.

a pubbie?  Sorry, but I just can't place it.

Err, no.  Sorry to say this guys, and I've got nothing against the man as a conservative and an historic politician, but can anyone really see him giving a SOTU address?  I don't know what it is that makes some guys just seem presidential, but whatever it is Bush has got it.  Newt just doesn't ... even if he weren't named after a ... type of salamander?

Augustine may have a point about 2008 being a good time for an outsider to run for the GOP nomination (I would say "outsider" rather than "anti-Bush"). But not Newt.  I have elsewhere speculated that a young, strongly conservative, governor from a swing state would have the best chance.  Take a look at Matt Blunt guys.  OK, maybe he's a bit too young. Pawlenty? Maybe, but my gut tells me that guy has Veep written all over him.  Bush 3 says he's not running, and that's probably a good thing for anti-dynastic reasons.  Condi would be great, but she would have trouble in the South. McCain could do it, but he'd have to make nice with religious conservatives during the primaries.  Owen might do the trick, except for the personal issues.  Hey, has anybody been talking about Huckabee in Arkansas?  Articulate, southern, several victories in statewide elections in a state that usually votes Democrat on the state level, no naked pictures that anyone is aware of ... why not?

Don't sell Newt short.  Despite his personal issues, he will forever be fondly remembered as the man who led us out of the Congressional wilderness.  For that alone, many Republicans will give him a serious look.  He has a brilliant mind for politics, and I have always listened intently when has has spoken about strategy and political posturing.        

The problem is more than a question of: Who do we want so we can beat the Democrats?   We also want to find a President who will advance the cause.  (In more than a "we are maintaining our power so that there is slow progress in pursuing out issues" kind of manner.)  I beleive the time has found us.  We must succeed in our objectives now, while our movement is still young, (I would put 1994 as the most recent renewing of our cause).   Consider that I almost voted for Gore because I saw little difference between him and Bush.  I decided Bush would be a good caretaker president.  I have been delightedly surprised.  Bush has been very effective in enacting (instead of merely pursuing) SOME of our goals:

    1:  Cutting Taxes

    2:  Unrelenting War against foriegn threats

    3:  Expanding our majority in the Senate

                so that

    4:  (hopefully) Apointing strict Constructionists to the Supreme Court

    5:  (Perhaps) Reforming Social Security

    However, Bush has not done well on several other issues.  I think that for 2008 we will want a candidate who has a credible reputation on the following issues (some will be the same):

    1:  Continue in fighting the War on Terror

                     but,

    2:  Able to identify some end goal, which will allow the War to end (with us winning of course, not the fake, declare victory and go home attitude among Democrats)

    3:  Balance the Budget (without Tax increases)

    4:  Shrink the role of the Federal Gov't by returning responsiblities to the states (ie eliminating the Dept. of Education, repealing the NCLB act)

    5:  Continue to maintain/increase our hold on the Senate (while appointing more Strict Constructionists)

    Plus choose one as a personal cause:

    6:  End Medicaid, Reform Medicare

    7:  Promote school vouchers (by making DC schools the model- after all if school vouchers can clean up the mess in DC, they can work anywhere)

    8:  Challenge the increasing pornographic nature of TV shows, and the ease of accessing pornography on the Internet (Under the Interstate Commerce clause)

    9:  Reform current No-Fault Divorace laws (except this is mainly a State issue)

    10: Establish more Free Trade Agreements, (with S. America, Japan, Phillipines, S. Korea, Africa, China) ie increase the level of Free Trade for Americans

    11: Immigration Reform: I suggest we focus on naturalization requirements and education laws to encourage assimilation.  (ie make the lack of assimilation the issue, rather than the number of immigrants)

Notice that the required things are essentialy:

     Fight War on Terror (equivilant to Cold War)

     Small government

The essential ingredients in all of the past election successes since Reagan, and the glue that holds the conservative/libertarian alliance together.

Each of the optional causes run the risk of alienating different interest groups.  The most attractive in my mind would be promoting school vouchers-  because they are incredibly popular with African-Americans, and if the President could use the success of school vouchers in DC schools to generate support for similar measure in state politics it could lead to a complete re-alignment of political forces in America, making the Republicans the dominate party.

Well how do the contenders stack up?

On issue:

    1: Guliani or Condi are best, but none of the Republicans are very weak here

    2: Unknown at this point, Gingrich is a crafty fellow... but I'd give the edge to Condi Rice

    3: Gingrich is best, hands down, no else even close.  McCain is second best.  Romney is acceptable, maybe some of the other governors.  I don't know how Guliani and Pataki shape up, but I tend to be suspicious of anyone from NYC on budget issues, (tendency to raise taxes).

    4: Gingrich is best, McCain is decent.  I don't know about the Republican Governors. Guliani and Pataki get a thumbs down.

    5: For the first part, (expanding control over the Senate): Condi Rice, Mitt Romney, Guliani, and McCain are the most attractive in my mind.  However, Gingrich did engineer the take over of the House, so he might not be a bad choice.   For the second half (appointing Strict Constructionists), Gingrich and Romney are safe bets, I think McCain and Rice are acceptable, but I'd be very nervous about Guliani.

I don't know the other potential candidates well enough to evaluate them, but it appears that the potential canadiate with the best strength on paper is... Gingrich.  Which actually surprises me, although I don't know why.  I guess he is the closest to the traditional fusion (of libertartian and conservative) Republican candidate.  However, he does have a lot of baggage that does not show up in the above analysis.  So maybe we should jump on the McCain bandwagon, or draft Condi Rice.

Uh-huh, it's Gingrich:

http://www.latimes.com/la-na-pastors1feb01,0,1673639.story?coll=la-home-hea
dlines

So... how does a Gingrich/Rice ticket grab you?  Or  a Rice/Gingrich ticket.

Gingrich was a lousy politician once he had the reins. He'd make an unutterably poor President.

And Condi's pro-choice. An internet constituency notwithstanding, she's not gonna make it through the primaries.

I don't think so. Just because he got his teeth kicked in my the best politician in a generation (which, by the way - Clinton did at the expense of the rest of his party), doesn't make Newt a failure.

He got a LOT done - and it can. not. be. ignored. that Newt deserves not only more credit than anyone else for ending 40 years of Dem. rule in the House - but enacted good House reforms for the long term as well.

We owe a lot to Newt, like him or hate him.

He caved. He lost seats from the majority he'd helped build. He became a liability.

I concede every other point you made, but ultimately, it doesn't change my point: Once he had the reins, he wasn't so good any more.

...permanently altered the entire political landscape to our favor.  What he couldn't do was manage the day-to-day affairs of leadership.  Too many lapses in judgment, too many occasions where he put his foot in his mouth, too much ammunition given to his political opponents (and that includes the press).

I'll never stop giving him his props for what he did. I just don't think we was suited to hold the power we managed to wrest.

Re: "If John Kerry can transform from rich northeastern ..." But he couldn't.  And in any event Kerry lost.  This is not a good standard to set for ourselves people.

"Republican".

I don't know for sure. I lost my secret decoder ring.

Newt is a HORRIBLE Presidential candidate. Elections aren't just about issues... people don't LIKE Gingrich, and never really did. He is a complete zero, no chance at all to be on the ticket. None.

The best three options right now are Sanford, Pawlenty, and maybe Allen.

He's brilliant, but old news.  He's had his 15 minutes, and his baggage is too great.

I've analyzed the 2008 race over and over on various sites throughout the blogosphere.  Basically, those who want someone from a dark-red state are just asking for another close election.  We have to start winning blue states.  And that means either finding a blue-stater to run or nominating McCain, who would sweep the nation, red and blue alike.  As the GOP has always been the party with the distinct line of succession, it is naive to think that some dark horse candidate will win the nod.  And while there's no heir apparent this time around, the current crown princes seem to be limited to Condi as Sec. of State, Rudy as a nat'l hero, McCain because it's "his turn," and Frist because of his Majority Leader position.  The nominee will almost certainly be one of them, and in the event that a dark horse does win the nod for the first time since 1940, it will likely be either Romney because of his bankroll or Allen because, well, red-staters seem to like him.  In other words, the chances that the nominee will be a traditionally-conservative red-state WASP are far less than the odds that a non-traditional candidate will bear the GOP mantle.  And that will be good for everyone.

Pawlenty will have been a successful and popular governor of a purple state for six years when 2008 comes around.  And MN just so happens to border Iowa.  With the upper-midwest the new electoral battleground, Pawlenty would be uniquely positioned for a general election.  Pair him with John Kyl for the foreign policy experience, and you have a killer ticket.

He actually lost to Kennedy when it was his "turn", but 8 years later he came back and won.  I could be argued that it was Gingrich's "turn" in 2000, but that personal baggage derailed him.  After all, if Guliani's personal baggage doesn't disqualify him I don't see why Newt's should cause us to write him off.  I'm not saying that Gingrich is the ONE, but I think we should consider him.

Actually, we don't have to win blue states. I would think Bush's success would have made that clear.