Gingrich

Malicious Wraith · Post by **Malicious Wraith** » Thu Dec 01, 2011 1:33 am

Anyone have anything insightful to point out that has not been regurgitated by the media?

germloucks · Post by **germloucks** » Thu Dec 01, 2011 1:44 am

I havent lived a good enough life to see Gingrich as the Republican nominee. - Barney Frank

germloucks · Post by **germloucks** » Thu Dec 01, 2011 1:58 am

But seriously, i read an interesting article about the republican nomination race. Basically, it went along the lines of - Lets stop looking for the perfect candidate (he doesnt exist) and use the shoehorn to get the most electable candidate. To conservatives, worries about Gingrichs moral faux pass (3 divorces and an admitted adulterer) are legitimate concerns for social conservatives. On the other hand, Romney has Romneycare looming over his legacy.

Gingrich has the distinction of being perceived as more conservative than Romney, which i believe is why he has seen a big surge in support. Romney continues to have more cash, more support with independents, and a better organized campaign. Gingrich also brings back warm memories for some conservatives as being a part of the "good old days" of the conservative party, i think.

Ultimately, there isnt much more to say here about the platform. Its all about the game now. The political wrangling, the offense taking, the attack ads, the strategy. Thats the election... the media just covers it like it is... a horse race. The conservative ticket isnt some mysterious platform that the media constantly interferes with, its well known what the big ticket items and big ticket issues are that voters worry about - the candidates are preaching about - and the media is relentlessly covering.

If i was a betting man, Romney will still be the nominee. He honestly has the best chance of defeating Obama. Gingrich's biggest strength is his conservative "street cred" but people keep forgetting that the social conservative agenda is not a "big tent" one. Its the GENERAL election that matters. Gingrich will have a very hard time distancing himself from the posturing he will have to do to get the republican ticket before the national election and that will alienate independent voters. Romney, on the other hand, will have a much easier time and that - to me- makes a big difference.

Romney also has more credibility, despite what you might hear in the media, especially with key swing voters. Thats why, in my opinion, we are seeing a lot of attack ads on romney as a "flip flopper" The best thing the democrats can do is weaken romney to the point that he barely loses to Gingrich in the primaries, and that will leave a very weak Gingrich to face a much better funded and established Obama. That will be GG the day Gingrich gets the nomination

Malicious Wraith · Post by **Malicious Wraith** » Thu Dec 01, 2011 2:04 am

My money is on Gingrich, and it is simply because there are no other viable perceived conservatives, and the RNC Nomination is not decided by "America." It is decided by the people that still give Sarah Palin 8-15% of support against these other candidates.

We know all of this though. I was hoping someone had some insightful comments regarding Gingrich's political clout from the 90's. I am very interested in how he leveraged his political influence to create such a successful "insider politics business". I thought he went out like a bomb, resigning a midst a @#(!load of hate.

More than that, I don't buy the early Republican Candidate vs. Obama polling. Pre-GE polling on such matters is a very inaccurate. How many Clinton supports said they wouldn't vote for Obama in '08 before the primaries were over, but then they did? .... Independents?

I really want to know if Gingrich has "outsider gonna $#@! politicians up" because of his tremendous ego, and the fact that he was massacred by his own party in the late 90's.... or if he is liable to just entrench himself in the establishment.

Vortrog · Post by **Vortrog** » Thu Dec 01, 2011 2:44 am

In Australia, a 'Ging-rich' would be a wealthy redhead.
The term Ranga-Rich may also be used.

Not particularly relevant, but discussing political hopefuls is like discussing which public toilet you think you will be able to use next.

Camaro · Post by **Camaro** » Thu Dec 01, 2011 3:05 am

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CWKTOCP45zY...player_embedded

Gingrich and Romney are both big government Republicans. The worst thing about a big government Republican is that they are steadfast in their NO NEW TAXES yet continue to increase spending.

WTF is that!? If your going to spend money like an idiot at least try and cover for it. Oh wait, that's why they have the Federal Reserve to buy half of the governments bonds to keep it afloat. And apparently to bail out Europe as well. Yup. Brilliant.

No thanks, I would rather have Obama re-elected and Republicans control the House and Senate than have every branch of government controlled by neocons.

I'm still behind Paul. I think many people may be surprised by his performance in Iowa.

Icky · Post by **Icky** » Thu Dec 01, 2011 3:17 am

I'm just ignoring the republican primary at this point.

I can't take it seriously with people like Bachman, Cain, and Gingrich in the race.

Gingrich has been such a ridiculously contradictory jackass the past year I can't believe he is even a contender.

MrChaos · Post by **MrChaos** » Thu Dec 01, 2011 4:21 am

Vortrog wrote:QUOTE (Vortrog @ Nov 30 2011, 09:44 PM) In Australia, a 'Ging-rich' would be a wealthy redhead.
The term Ranga-Rich may also be used.

Not particularly relevant, but discussing political hopefuls is like discussing which public toilet you think you will be able to use next.

I always look to expand the world's toilet seat STDs whnever possible myself
*skritch skritch skritch*

The Serb

edit9000: oh cammie sammie only those under 25 are unaware of the front running flavor of the day quick fade to vastly last nature of mavericks like Rue Paul

germloucks · Post by **germloucks** » Thu Dec 01, 2011 4:24 am

To answer your question MW, Newt Gingrich was a big deal back in the 90s.

Short version:

He was mainly credited with ending over 40 years of democratic control of the house, and with major legislative victories, some of which were very bipartisan. He was Time's man of the year for some of those reasons. Because of his popularity, he won the speaker of the house position. However, he did not tow the party line well enough, and pissed off lots of his colleagues which in turn went after him every way they could. He resigned shortly after 4 years as speaker and went on to make lots of money as a lobbyist. (read: "historian" and "consultant"). There is also the huge government shutdown caused by a budget standoff that newt had his fingers all over

Long version here

sambasti · Post by **sambasti** » Thu Dec 01, 2011 8:52 am

This is a man who wants to remove/weaken child labor laws. The fact that he considers putting kids to work a solution to the income gap in this country shows he's got both a lack of understanding of what causes and creates the income gap (hint: it's not a lack of child labor), and a lack of a soul. The fact that he can say this and almost make it sound reasonable and sane shows why he's a good politician.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P-gWP4xA2TM