Newt ‘Danger’ Gingrich?

Humorous article by Townhall’s Matt Lewis in the Politico:

Here’s the problem with always doing the safe thing: Voting is supposed to be a bit rebellious. There are times to throw caution to the wind and go for what you really want. (This often happens after a few drinks.) Depending on your lifestyle, that might include buying a motorcycle, following the Grateful Dead, getting a tattoo or just ordering another helping of that sinfully rich chocolate cake.

This brings me to Newt Gingrich. The former House speaker from Georgia might be the only Republican presidential candidate, declared or otherwise, who has the potential to be romantic. Other people give speeches; when Newt speaks, the words have music. He’s poetic. He’s quixotic. He’s … dangerous.

He’s also incredibly intelligent. He’s proposing cutting-edge solutions to vexing policy issues like health care and the tax code. He’s offering a compelling vision for a limited but efficiently run federal government.

Something tells me we are heading into a time when conservatives will be willing to jump in the proverbial convertible and head to Vegas on a whim. Hey, Newt’s driving.

26 comments

  1. Loren says:

    I lost most of my faith in Newt when, during the last election cycle, he put forth a platform that promoted jurisdiction-stripping in no fewer than three of its eleven planks. He explicitly proposed taking away the Supreme Court’s judicial review over Pledge of Allegiance cases and Kelo-esque property condemnation cases, and he said the Congress should simply overrule the Court on detainee cases like Hamdan.

    I have a hard time believing that Newt is still a small-government advocate, when he wants to remove checks on the legislature and executive.

  2. I Am Jacks Post says:

    Small government? Man, if I were running against Newt I’d hang that prescription drug bill (that he personally lobbied Members of Congress to support) around his neck. And that’s just the first thing that comes to mind.

    Small government . . .

  3. SpaceyG says:

    You could apply all the above cliches and whimsy-talk to a TV evangelist, too. The only thing dangerous out there is Matt Lewis’ hideous prose.

  4. Icarus says:

    Unlike McCain, who is neither a great ideas man, nor a great candidtate.

    I say McCain’s out before September.

  5. I Am Jacks Post says:

    Nahhh, McCain raised enough money to last until, I don’t know, AT LEAST October.

  6. Brian from Ellijay says:

    Agreed Icarus.

    McCain only raising 10 million to Rudys 15 and Mitts 23. Newt Announcing in October. McCain discing strong conservative activists and barely winning a straw poll in SC (where he was the only candidate focusing on it.)

    McCain is on his last leg, being he HAS TO out raise everybody this quarter and make up for the slacking the last. If not, he drops out when Newt announces.

    Newt/Mitt 08 Mitt/Newt 08

  7. Brian from Ellijay says:

    AS do a majority of the smaller conservative candidates consolidating their voices with a Renewed focus for America and Newt Gingrich.

    i.e. Governors Gilmore and Huckabee, Congressmen Tancredo and Paul, and others.

  8. I Am Jacks Post says:

    Brian, those were two of the most unintelligible posts I’ve ever read.

    Please clarify what you were trying to communicate.

  9. jsm says:

    Here’s to Fred Thompson. I hope he jumps in and rocks the GOP ticket. We need his Constitutional aptitude and common sense approach in the White House.

  10. Jace Walden says:

    jsm,

    What “Constitutional aptitude” are you talking about? The aptitude that caused him to piss on the First Amendment with his McCain-Feingold vote?

  11. Jace Walden says:

    Don’t get me wrong, I like Fred Thompson, and I hope I didn’t offend you. We need a lot of things, but Fred Thompson’s “Constitutional Aptitude” isn’t one of them.

  12. Chris says:

    At least Sen. Thompson realized his mistake. If he pledges to fix it, that makes him a darn good choice in my book.

  13. Bull Moose says:

    I am not sure that I understand the viewpoint from where you see politics. I’d like to try and understand.

    All of you know I’m for McCain 110%. That aside, I don’t think Fred Thompson runs. I may be wrong, but he was the co-chair for McCain’s campaign in 2000 (after Lamar dropped out) and I don’t think he runs. Romney’s flip flops make him nothing more than a finger in the wind politician going whatever way the wind blows. His flip flops make John Kerry look consistent. The more people know about Rudy Giuliani the lower his numbers go and the bad news is only beginning for him.

    Of the top tier candidates, John McCain has the best message, superior campaign staff, and organization on the ground that can produce results when it matters. He raised $12.5 million from over 60,000 donors , only had 3 major fundraising events, and didn’t start till January (I believe Romney had only 35,000 donors , has had events around the country, and started raising money while everyone else was focusing on 2006, oh, and under his leadership of the Republican Governor’s Association, we actually lost Republican Governors).

    Of the also rans, Mike Huckabee is positioning well for Vice President. I’m not sure what Brownback is doing. Tommy Thompson would have been a great candidate in 2000. Tom Tancredo is a one issue candidate. Ron Paul must be tired of the House, and Duncan Hunter is running for Secretary of Defense. Finally, I think, Jim Gilmore is getting his name ID up to run for the Senate (I guess?) or maybe he wants to be Secretary of Homeland Security or something. Who knows.

    I love Newt’s academic discussions on the serious issues. He tackles the various elements of the important issues the way many are scared to do. However, he’s got serious flaws on personal character, and after what some on the far right did to Bill Clinton, it’s hard to imagine how the media isn’t going to point out the hypocritical nature of the selection of Gingrich as the nominee.

    Anyway, not to antagonize anyone, but I’d really be interested in hearing the perspective of how you view the candidates and so forth on your perspective of the race.

  14. joe says:

    Bull Moose,

    I do not think that there are many electable candidates. During the primaries 7-8 years ago, I voted in the Democratic primary. If you recall, the Georgia primaries were meaningless since the candidates had already been selected. I did a write-in for McCain because I believed then (and now) that he really is a RINO.

    I will never ever vote for McCain in a general election. I will consider Fred Thompson. If he does not get the nomination, I will probably vote Libertarian.

    McCain is not a conservative. Except for your support of McCain, you have a pretty good analysis of the GOP candidates.

  15. Jace Walden says:

    Bull,

    I am big time disappointed in ALL of the top tier candidates.

    Mitt Romney is an obvious phony. I don’t see how someone that considers him or herself to be intelligent could believe a word this hack says. He’s flip-flopped on more issues than John Kerry.

    Rudy Guiliani is only a one trick pony. “I was the mayor of a big city that got attacked”. Big deal. Everyone seems to think Guiliani was a great leader. Well, if simply being Mayor of a city when it falls under the largest terrorist attack in American history makes one “great”, then so be it. But, firefighters aren’t too happy with Rudy. Plus, to say that he is weak on the 2nd Amendment is an understatement. For all intents and purposes, he’s against it.

    I know this is going to piss you off, Bull, but I can’t vote for McCain either. BUT, it’s not for the reasons most people don’t like him. I happen to know that he is strong on both National Defense and Pro-life related issues. I don’t like his position on granting amnesty to illegal aliens (after all, that’s what the McCain Kennedy Bill would do), I don’t like his anti-first amendment stances (McCain-Feingold). BUT, I could have lived with those faults if he hadn’t turned into such a blantant panderer. When he ran in 2000, I supported him. He was the alternative. He was the “maverick”. He is a war hero. He was the man! I bought into that BS 100%. He said that no politician should be beholden to no talent hacks like Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell. NOW he can’t get close enought to either. He’s done a complete 180. Now he’s pandering to the extremists in the party. Surely you have to see that, Bull. Anyway, that’s why I can’t support McCain.

    My top three, in no particular order, are:

    Jim Gilmore, Ron Paul, and Fred Thompson.

    Yes, I realize that of the three, only Thompson has a real chance, but I’d rather cast my vote out of principle than odds.

  16. bowersville says:

    ” I am big time disappointed in all of the top tier candidates.”

    IMHO, I believe that sums it up. Gingrich nor Thompson would even be a subject of conversation or conservative blogs if this were not true.

    Drudge has a report (developing) on McCain reorganizing his campaign that you might find interesting.

    If I had to vote tomorrow, I would be forced to hold my nose and vote Rudy.

  17. Federalist says:

    Nobody votes libertarian. Libertarians vote Republican, everybody knows this. Stop kidding yourself Jace.

  18. jsm says:

    “What ‘Constitutional aptitude’ are you talking about? The aptitude that caused him to piss on the First Amendment with his McCain-Feingold vote?

    “Don’t get me wrong, I like Fred Thompson, and I hope I didn’t offend you. We need a lot of things, but Fred Thompson’s ‘Constitutional Aptitude’ isn’t one of them.”

    No offense taken, Jace. I was recently directed by a respected friend, who has 30+ years of journalism & speech writing experience, to look at Fred’s resume, starting with Watergate. Acknowledging the hiccup with the McCain-Feingold bill, I was fairly impressed with everything I saw.

    Obviously, nobody’s perfect, but I believe Fred Thompson can go to Washington with credibility and respect from his peers, can deal with the pressure of the politics, can utilize his working knowledge of the Consitution, and could possibly turn this Nation back toward freedom and common sense.

    I don’t see these qualities in any other candidate out there–on either side.

  19. Demonbeck says:

    I think Fred is more in touch with the average voter than anyone being discussed today.

    Everyone else in the mix are career politicians.

    I am starting to think more and more that he’s the answer for our future.

Comments are closed.