Newt Gingrich

  • Thread starter Thread starter YoLaDu
  • Start date Start date
It's very early. Hillary was the clear Dem favorite and Romney for the Reps 4 years ago. There's lots of time.
 
Why would any Republican candidate come out during a time of relative political quietness and get shredded by the MSM? It's like Newt and Trump went out as the sacrificial lambs thrown into the piranha infested Amazon.
 
Newt wasn't "thrown into" the river, he jumped in face first, and the piranhas have been in the Republican party, not the MSM. Newt is learning that the new Republican party is not his old Republican party. The Smartest Republican Around somehow missed seeing that his party had moved to the extreme right, and now they're making him pay.

The majority of the MSM went along with Trump in saying he was a gin-u-wine fur-real candidate. His own dumbass actions brought his publicity campaign to early end. Sad, because so many of us were enjoying his comedy routines.
 
I don't think Newt ever had a chance or that Romney does either. Democrats will overlook anything if a condidate promises the right things; Republicans require a higher degree of integrity - personal and otherwise - from their candidates.

Newt did a great job as Speaker - most of the good that happened during the Clinton years was because Newt and the Republican Congress forced those things on him. (You think Clinton really wanted to reform welfare?) However, a big swath of the Republican electorate would never vote for him and he'd never have been able to overcome that. His performance Sunday killed even the chance of him being a factor at all. That is unfortunate, as he would have had a positive influence on the discourse.

Romney has similar problems for a very different reason. As the Republican candidate, he would take our #1 issue off the table. There is no way he could effectively make the points about Obamacare that we need our candidate to make. Like Newt, he has too many people that will not consider him at all.

I believe it will be either Pawlenty or Daniels, unless someone very unexpected enters the race. If it's either of them, they have a great shot against Obama. Unless the economy improves by election day, Obama will have a very tough time getting reelected.
 
Newt would be a solid Veep for one of the good Repulican Governors to pick. He's the Republican version of Joe Biden basically, only with more accomplishments.
 
It is a bit surprising to see just how vicious the attacks from the right have been. I guess sometimes a superior intellect is not enought o save you when you're perceived to have gone too far off the reservation.

Ironically, it seems many GOP office holders appear to agree with his position on the Ryan plan, given how they have begun to distance themselves from it.
 
Backbones are hard to find in Washington. Outside of Paul Ryan no one has the guts to propose any real cuts. Even Ryan's are years int he making. There is no leadership.
 
Maybe that was what he was doing. I think he was just grandstanding and it was bad form.
 
I for one am not surprised at all by Newt's melt down. Get this - he's on a Mediterranean cruise within weeks after declaring his candidacy for the presidency while his campaign burns to the ground. In the end, his attack on Ryan was a fatal self-inflicted gunshot wound. For a man of Newt's intellectual prowess and ego, he will go out with a humiliating whimper.

In the wake of Newt's collapse, T-Paw has picked up some key operatives and there is a detectable current of donor money drifting his way. He's done a commendable job of maintaining campaign discipline, hitting the Iowa trails hard, and bulking up his political persona. He's ratcheted the intensity of his criticisims of Obama's policies, especially economic.

But another one to watch is Perry. Because we've been focused nationally on the declared field, it's easy to forget our own governor has got serious conservative street cred - a possible darkhorse candidate with an imposing political potential that would command attention.
 
Perry is basically the John Edwards of the republican party. he is a complete dirtbag, but he's not known nationally and his folksy charm may get him far.
 
Personal opinions aside, Perry has strong resume that would give him an immediate bounce as a candidate. Remember, Republican governors have been attractive to the American public, e.g. Bush 43, Ronald Reagan (both two termers). McCain was a Senator who lost; Bush 41 was a one-termer.

First, Perry's an experienced campaigner who's thrashed more dem opponents than I can remember. He's seasoned and, by appearances, is prepared to take on a national race.

His tenure has been, relatively speaking, free of major scandal. Yes, we can point to controversy involving various state agencies, but they've not damaged him in Texas and I have no reason to believe they'd damage him nationally.

He's photo/tele-genic. Notwithstanding Debra Medina's surprise debate performance in the last election, Perry handled himself just fine.

Considering the state of the national economy, he's presided over an impressive economic performance in Texas. He will, for example, benefit from press like today's Wall Street Journal article:

WSJ: Lone Star Jobs Surge

Of course, we all know there are a lot of factors driving our economy beyond the governor's office, but he's the guv, so he can claim to be part of the solution.

Like him or not, there is no reason to think he couldn't compete quite well.
 
I think he's got some baggage that will hurt with national media. His veto of the bill that would have prevented execution of the mentally retarded was a national disgrace and will be resurrected if he seeks higher office.
Texas's horrific high school graduation rates, very low wages and abysmal level of service to, for example, the mentally ill and abused children will not be overlooked as much nationally as it is here. Likewise Perry's virtual sale for campaign contributions Regents' appointments and awards from his high tech slush fund won't play well nationally.
 
i just think his pro-texas stance, which is fine for a texas governor, will be seen as a huge negative to a national electorate.

his obvious disdain, (possibly feigned for political reasons) for the federal government makes it hard to see him as an executive of the federal government. I know that plays well amongst a certain conservative base, but i am not sure it would play favorably nationally. i could be wrong.

and i am just not sure a governor from texas is going to nationally. i don't have a link or anything, but i don't think, as a whole, Texas has a high favorability rating nationally.

Not that i care a whole lot, but i think that is the sentiment..

i have said this in the past, we have no idea exactly what kind of campaigner Perry can be. In Texas his biggest asset has been that he is not a Democrat. He will have to present more than that to a national audience.
 
I, for one, would feel much safer from coyotes if Gov. Perry was our president. And imagine the toll roads across the nation and all our children protected against genital warts.
 
The GOP has a horrendous list of candidates right now. They are recycling these old has beens that have no chance of being elected (Gingrich, Romney, Huckabee, etc) and then they toss in some looney's like Trump, Palin, and Bachman. What they need to do is get behind some of their younger congressman who are preaching smaller limited government. Somebody that can appeal to a younger base and doesn't have as many skeletons in the closet. I seriously would consider voting for Ron Paul this go around if I were in the GOP.
 
Lack of PCP in Massachusetts is a problem. Much of the intent of the healthcare plan is not being realized b/c people are not getting preventative treatment or early treatment and end up going to ER for example.

This will certainly be a problem if coverage is expanded in any state or nationally. There is already a lack of PCP with our current system and we all know the reason for this....insurance companies. Doctors have seen their reimbursements squeezed down to nearly nothing over the years. Now medical school students are choosing to specialize and very few are choosing primary care or family medicine. It is already a problem that would get worse with expanded coverage. I see it everyday as patients come into my pharmacy complaining they can't find a physician that takes their insurance or they say the physicians that do aren't taking new patients. Many of these PCPs are, frankly, very old and either have been falling off the charts as they retire or are coming up on retirement. There just aren't enough young physicians jumping into the game to replace them. It is already a crisis that many will soon realize if they haven't done so already. Becasue of this I see that as an entirely different problem. Not one caused by the Massachusetts plan or the Obama plan, but rather one that is made worse by these plans which expand coverage. There will either be a slow adjustment to these plans and we will slowly see more physicians choose the family care route or we will see other providers given more authority. PAs or APNs will be given expanded authority to treat and I believe soon in some cases will be able to operate independently of physicians and bill for services directly under their NPI.

Cost has gone up. Certainly this is another issue. This is however what you would expect with expanded coverage. However we have seen budget concerns in many states in non healthcare areas. If you want to point the finger at the Romney healthcare plan in Massachusetts then you have to point the finger in many areas when you talk about Perry for example. I would rather have 97% of my population covered by health insurance vs. firing teachers and police officers like we are doing here in Texas and in many other states.

The healthcare system in general has seen exploding costs. I see it as a crisis with the current system. Romney has chosen to tackle the issue in his own state while other either run away from the problem or just ignore it. The Romney plan i only a few years in and is certainly going through growing pains. They have made adjustments and are looking at further adjustments to bring costs down. What they aren't dong is running from the problem and leaving 25% of their state uninsured.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

NEW: Pro Sports Forums

Cowboys, Texans, Rangers, Astros, Mavs, Rockets, etc. Pro Longhorns. The Chiefs and that Swift gal. This is the place.

Pro Sports Forums

Recent Threads

Back
Top