Cats may have nine lives, but Newt Gingrich also has as many political lives. His campaign has been written off more times than people can count. He has gone from the bottom to the top, and back several more times.
Now, he is a distant third in most of the polls. Many in the conservative establishment are calling for Newt to quit the campaign.
Is it time for Newt to go?
It is time for Newt to go.
It is time for Newt to go on campaigning.
Newt is the last conservative standing. Newt is the last one standing between Mitt Romney and the nomination. Romney knows this. Why is Romney directing millions in advertising against a candidate who is in a distant third place while spending relatively little against the candidate who is leading in the polls?
The field remains as follows: Newt is the last standing conservative. Romney is the Republican liberal. Santorum is the big government social conservative. Paul is the libertarian.
Paul has no chance. His base is not a Republican base. The three caucuses held last week have pretty much destroyed the myth that Paul does well in caucus states.
For those who like Santorum, you are about to see one of the ugliest episodes of political knife fighting in recent years. Much as Romney’s superpac unloaded on Gingrich in Florida, you are about to see it done to Santorum in Michigan and other Super Tuesday states.
Between Santorum’s statements on contraception and Foster Friess’ statements yesterday, Santorum does not need enemies. His friends are sinking him without them.
Michigan’s primary is 11 days out. That is all the time it took Romney’s superpac to destroy Gingrich in Florida and Gingrich was a much tougher opponent.
Newt helps the conservative movement by staying in two ways. First, he can still win. If Santorum crashes, which he will in the next few days, where are the conservative voters going to go? We still do not want Mitt Romney. We are not going to go to Ron Paul.
Gingrich remains the only conservative alternative. If Gingrich can stay in the race, either he wins or has the potential to drive the primary to a brokered convention.
Richard Viguerie, in his blog a couple of days ago, warned conservatives against a brokered convention. His fear is the establishment would control such a convention. His fears are justified, but it should be noted that Richard supports Santorum.
If we cannot get Newt Gingrich in as our nominee, a brokered convention is our next best hope. A brokered convention would certainly not be perfect. In some ways it would be the ultimate “death by committee” nightmare.
We would not get the next Ronald Reagan out of that convention but we would get a candidate better than Mitt Romney and possibly a candidate who can beat Barack Obama.
That's really great news Joe. Thanks for the update,
Speaker Gingrich EXPOSED!: http://www.politijim.com/2012/02/those-damn-narcissists-like-newt.html
It starts out pretty tongue-in-cheek but stay with it, you'll get the picture. Don't miss the Paul Weyrich video - especially "damning".
Carol and Politijim, I won't dispute your examples of grandiose thinkers like Steve Jobs or Bill Gates, but you overlook the fact that their effective leadership was their more important attribute, not their grandiosity.
I question your objectivity. Let me give you a military example.
General Eisenhower graduated in the upper half of his class at West Point. He was a leader who knew how to lead and successfully lead the entire combined armies of the free world and won the European Theater of Operations of WWII. He was subsequently elected President of the United States and is arguably one of the top ten Presidents in our history. He had grandiose ideas, but more importantly he was a successful and effective leader.
General MacArthur graduated number one in his class at West Point. He was a brilliant tactician one of the top military minds of all history. He successfully commanded US military troops and won the Pacific Theater of Operations of WWII. Subsequently he successfully drove back the Red Chinese and won a truce in Korea. He was a narcissist who thought he was above taking orders and was removed from his command by his Commander in Chief, President Truman. General MacArthur was a grandiose tactician, but not a great commander nor leader.
Newt Gingrich is a Grandiose Royal Smart Person who seeks and accepts positions of leadership and then is only able to successfully lead for a short time. When his troops quit obeying his orders, he narcissistically finds other troops who will take his orders for a short time or he just leaves in defeat.
MUG, thank you for your thoughtful reply. Point taken. However, along with being a fan of Newt's I am a Pragmatist. Newt lasted 4 years as Speaker in a very hostile environment. I'm not saying Newt is the president we need for all time but I am saying that if he can give us 4 good years of pushing through his "grandiose" ideas for America we will have been pulled back from the brink of destruction, there will have been time and opportunity to demonstrate that conservative ideas work better than liberal ideas and the next election, presumably, would be happening in a safer and more rational environment.
I consider Rick Santorum the only other viable candidate currently running. However, I don't believe Santorum has the understanding of the depth of the hostility raging around us that you and I do! I'm not saying he would be beguiled into pursuing anti-American policies but I can envision him being lured unawares into some kind of ambush. I just don't see the awareness nor do I see the fight and the fire it's going to take to stand up to the opposition, which, I think we can agree, is not going to back down quietly. In the next cycle I might go for Santorum 100% but in this one we need a bulldog, if not a "junkyard dog".
As for leadership, Newt didn't pass all that good legislation by himself or with just R's. He recruited support from both sides of the aisle so that the D president had no choice but to hold his nose and sign the bills.
Okay, it could be said that's tactical. But as Judson pointed out once, Newt also is capable of unifying people - as he did in SC. I've seen him do that many times before. We haven't been able to see it much in this campaign because the tactics of the opposition have thwarted it - who ever heard of a debate without audience reaction?!! And we've all been complaining about the uber-liberal moderators.
I won't dispute that Newt left Congress in defeat. But have you taken a look at the odds he was facing?!! The press, the Establishment, a mis-led public. Even a lion has no chance against an organized herd of jackals. The reasons he gave for leaving were very similar to the reasons Sarah Palin gave for stepping down these many years later - the people's business was not getting done.
These are my reasons for believing that Newt is the guy for the task at hand.
Okay Carol, I'm frantically searching for the "Like" button!! Terrific written opinion and I fervently agree! THANKS!
If I hadn't already been supporting Newt I would be now I think. Thanks Carol.
Carol, you make a good case for Newt if we lived in a vacuum. I don't dislike Newt, but I see no way he will garner enough of the independent voters to beat Obama, who presently, by the numbers, already has the best chance at achieveing the electoral numbers for re-election. Of course, Obama's numbers can change. But it is doubtful Newt's will.
My concern is first that we must get rid of Obama not matter what. My second concern is that the only electable Republicans are Romney and possibly Santorum, which means that nothing noticable in governing will change other than ridding us of the Obama cabinet and his czars. The fundamental philosophy of big government will remain. And the governing mind-set, group-think will continue to concentrate more power in the Federal government. This is exactly what we all say we dislike and wish to change. But we don't.
This poses a conundrum for real conservatives; i.e., those who honestly want smaller, much less centralized Federal government, thereby causing the end of the forever incumbent poltiticians of both parties who think only in terms of their own self-interest (re-election, power and money) and not the nation's. Then there exists the overwhelming bureaucracy whose very nature is to preserve their autonomy and authority by continuing to mindlessly grow in size and scope of regulation and invasion of our personal lives.
George W. Bush nearly destroyed 40 years of struggle for the preeminanence of conservatism by his ill-considered attitude that he was creating a "compassionate conservativism" as if conservatism itself lacks concern and compassion. All the left needed to reinforce it's tired old tirade. Bush did not veto one bill in his two terms, and that is clearly impossible if one is intellectually honest. George W. Bush is a nice man and good-hearted, but he is not a consevative, he is a progressive with tendencies toward social conservatism. He and the Repulican congress created the most excessive government in years, and spent money like the most radical liberals' ideology, thus assuring real conservatives that there is little difference in the actions of Democrats and Republicans, although they speak of their difference quite readily when in need of funding and re-election.
The better option for real conservtives would be to see that all Congressional incumbents are removed and replace with conservatives and normal people outside the Washington group-think.
All politics are local, so although Congress has less that 10% approval rating, locally, each district and State believes their Senators and Representatives are just fine.
It appears that Hamiltonian Federalism will contine to dominate and Jeffersonian republicanism will fail because of the easily manipulated voters and the corruption bred by enabling incumbents to serve forever. We shall become subjects of our government rather than citizens of our republic.
All this because the Republican party establishment is not willing to step outside the established order and come to terms with the real needs and interests of the citizens, and they know nothing about how to do politics. Cowards is a word that comes to mind.
I am one of those "used to be" Republicans. I am not now, nor will I ever return. The party cannot be trusted to uphold conservtive principals of smaller government.
I believe I know about what I say having been an avid Republican since the mid-Sixties. Actions speak louder than words.
So what you're telling me is you're willing to settle for half-baked crap because, of course, the GOP knows so much about "electability" which is undoubtedly why they're in the minority in the Senate and would be in the House, too, if it were not for the Tea Party.
I'm sorry to be rude, Mr. Kelly, but you have spent a lot of erudition and bandwidth telling me why a champion cannot be elected to a position of power to rout these monsters who wish to plunder our country, steal our property and subvert our religion.
I submit that your sophistry is not wisdom; that it, in fact, borders on cowardice. It is an excuse for not disturbing you comfortable rut. It is justification for not getting your shirt wrinkled. I will stop short of alleging that your deflating remarks are born of a leftist inclination although they sound suspiciously as though they might be.
I say these things not to call you out or hold you up to ridicule but rather to try to restore heart to any hapless readers here whose hopes you may have dashed with your nihilistic rantings.
We are Americans, Sir, we are capable, we are bold, we are innovative. We have brought more freedom and more prosperity to the entire world than any nation or philosophy ever has. How dare you sell us short by urging caution - our backs are to the wall! It is not a time for caution, it is a time for boldness and clear vision.
Decades of settling for half-baked crap is what got us into this extremely dangerous situation. Enough already!
Carol, part of me hopes you are right, but my head and heart tell me we are in deep trouble. None of the four candidates in my opinion is capable of leading like Reagan did with Star Wars to accomplish what needs to be done. We need a General Patton at the Bulge, or an Admiral Farragut who will say "damn the torpedoes, full speed ahead." I don't trust Newt to brave the torpedoes and continue to fight. I will vote for ABO, but I think our only hope is a Brokered Convention and Sarah Palin or Michelle Bachmann.
Mug, you are looking from hind sight. Did we really know how Reagan would lead when he was nominated, really?? We are talking after history has declared him the best conservative president of the 20th century.
However, go back to the time when he was elected. He was called a dumb cowboy etc.It's the same thing today. The same rhetoric is spoken of Newt today. We are giving too much importance to the media without even realizing.
I'm truthfully leery about a brokered convention. The GOP never did well with that.The opposition won hands down.
I'm sorry MUG, Sarah and Michele are just a dream. They made their case, realized that they couldn't continue and that's it.
I realize the GOP now want the brokered convention for one reason, the Bush machine wants one of its own Bushes again, Jeb.
As far as I'm concerned if we let the RINO's dictate again we have BHO in the WH for another term.
The conservatives wanted the brokered convention but it will not be in our hands, the GOP will take over. We'll be moving one RINO out replacing it with another one. That helps the situation.....not!
The media is claiming that Jeb is a true conservative and not like his brother or his father. Be very aware, The Bush clan want Jeb in the Oval Office. SUPPORT NEWT!
Agi, you are right this is the most difficult election of my life to sort out the truth from the lies. Growing up on the farm we would say it's like sorting mouse turds from peppercorns, it's not easy because they look alike and you have to get your hands dirty to tell the difference.
Newt and the signers of the 94 Contract let me down and I'm not ready to trust Newt again. He's smart and can give good directions, but he has never shown leadership.
One of the signers of the 94 Contract, Congressman Scott McInnis ran for Colorado Governor in 2010. He was the endorsed by Establishment many of whom had also signed the Contract.
Because it was Scott's turn the Establishment talked his opponant Josh Penry into quitting. Flawed Tea Party Candidate Dan Maes ran as a Republican and stayed in the race and won the nomination.
Scott was exposed for a plagerism fraud that he was paid in the neighborhood of $200,000, but he wouldn't quit. Some of the Republican Establishment backed the Democrat candidate and others financed Congressman Tancredo to run as a third party candidate. As a result we have a liberal Democrat Governor.