Is Newt the tortoise in this race?

Every time Newt Gingrich opens his mouth, something intelligent pops out.  I’m beginning to wonder if he’s the tortoise in this race.  Bachmann and Perry have been self-immolating.  Cain is charming, dynamic and ill-informed.  Romney will do anything to win and he has the RomneyCare albatross around his neck.  And then there’s Newt:

(Go here, if the embed doesn’t work.)

Be Sociable, Share!
  • Ymarsakar

    At least he’s thinking of crushing enemies. 

  • Ymarsakar

    I believe very strongly in the virtue of crushing one’s enemies.

  • MacG

    “Abolish the Ninth Circuit and re-recruit”  and all this time I thought that Judgeships were for life – turns out like a ‘life time’ warranty may mean the life of the product it can be the life of the position not the judge…hmmm

  • dustoffmom

    I’ve agreed that Newt is by far the ‘smartest’ fella in the room, no matter where he is at the moment.  In any company he is more knowledgeable than most and can articulate his positions beautifully.  However….I also assumed/decided that he was the dreaded ‘unelectable’ and so resumed my quest for that one guy who could A)carry the conservative torch and B) most importantly defeat Obama.  But sadly in the current crop of choices, no matter how shining any of them appeared at first, the lack of knowledge and ‘character’ has reared it’s head.  So I find myself returning, again and again, to Newt.  And hoping again and again that someone a bit more ‘palatable’ to the masses will rise.  Newt….I admire and respect you but I just don’t think you can win.  Sorry, that’s the truth from my POV and defeating this maniac is more important to me right now than just about any policy disagreement.  I really need to be convinced Newt can do it and so far I have not been….but hopeful.

  • MacG

    Now that I posted the thought comes to mind it’s a good thing that the Dems did not figure that out when they had all the power…

  • Ymarsakar

    They figured it out. But it would mean working within the limits of the Constitution. That would mean the Demoncrats and Americans would be equal and playing by the rules. The Demoncrats, however, don’t like playing by the rules. So they cheat and gain short term benefits at the cost of long term… everything. And so long as people, Republicans and others, let them get away with it, evil will do what evil has been doing since the conception of humanity.

  • Moose

    Did you all notice the teleprompters…………….?

    …………. me neither. 😉

    I really like Newt because what he says comes from the heart and clearly defines what he believes. Why can’t he be elected? Isn’t that how Ronald Reagan got elected?

  • Mike Devx

    I’d vote for Newt Gingrich, but he’s probably my third choice right now.  That video showed me can speak to the conservative base, but I’m not convinced he can connect outside of it.  

    I approach this election differently than most.  I strongly believe we need a political revolution on the scale of Reagan’s revolution.  Anything less, and we’re still sliding down to disaster.  Sure, a GOP victory at least removes the Obama cancer… but it would guarantee eight years of more decline *if* that president weren’t able to fundamentally change the way Washington is headed.

    I’m not saying we need Reagan.  I’m saying we need a change, a revolution, on the *scale* of Reagan’s revolution.  Who among these candidates might be capable of inspiring, enthusing, and leading the voters in that direction?  And creating the coattails along with a Tea Party effort that would continue what was so gloriously started in 2010?

    Again, I say, anything less, and we’re just stuck in more decline.  A slower decline than Obama, but still headed inexorably for disaster.  Any of the current top four would institute plans that will dramatically improve the jobs situation and the economy; and all recognize that it’s the uncertain and dangerous Obama business climate that is making the “jobs economy” so much worse.  I guess I’m just taking my own unique longer-term vision and approach for what I want to see happen.

    In these times, a placeholder Republican president simply isn’t a good enough goal for me.

  • Moose

    Mike D.: “That video showed me can speak to the conservative base.”

    But, Mike, isn’t the same language Reagan used when he won? He won by BEING conservative, and he won in a landslide. Newt could very well be the Reagan in this race.

  • Oldflyer

    I like Newt.  My wife illustrates his problem; he is forever soiled in her eyes.

  • Carl

    This clip is part 5 of a speech, all 5 parts are posted here
    It is very well worth watching all 5 parts.

  • jj

    Dustoffmom is perfectly correct: Newt is the brains in the room, and, increasingly; the adult on the stage.  I am beyond sick of Romney and Perry pissing on each other, and was sick weeks ago of Bachman being unable to complete a thought without telling us how she fought this, that, or the other thing.
    I think it’s a very main-line republican thing to worry first and foremost about who is “electable.”  I also think “electable” is BS, particularly in fraught times.  It’s GOP-speak for whose turn it is, whose next in line – they have a great sense of order, the old-line GOP, and everybody takes a turn.  This results in candidates like Ford, George H.W. Bush, Dole and McCain, for whom no one outside their immediate families will vote.  (Okay, Ford and Bush were incumbents, but had Ford not been the accidental heir of Nixon, and Bush not been Reagan’s VP – would anyone have voted for either of them?  No – and damned few did.)  This is why we can no longer permit the old guard GOP to function as usual – the times are not usual.  If they fail to wake up, then we get rid of them.  (As I have said, they worry about the notional “third-party” problem, but don’t seem bright enough to have noticed that the “third party” will be them.)
    There’s a lot to like about Herman Cain, but now, I think, is not the time.  He has one or two solid ideas – which would need tweaking – but his focus is all on the economy.  Which is great, certainly, but the world is in a very dangerous place right now, and we can’t afford another foreign-policy rookie trying to get by with on-the-job training.  Obama and Hillary Clinton, neither of them remotely knowledgeable, have left things in such a tangle that we are in desperate need of someone who has some connection to reality on the world stage, thinks and speaks clearly, means what he says, and doesn’t forget that job #1 is America’s interests.   China’s an unaddressed problem, as is Russia, as is Iran – and everything else is just a mess.  Obama’s “thinking” – if that’s what it is – gets overtaken by events at least twice a week, every week, and he is woefully unprepared every single goddam time.  We no longer have the luxury of time, or the flexibility, to tolerate a continuing amateur hour at State.
    Newt’s been around a long time, and has thought and written persuasively on matters foreign, as well as domestic.  Of the problems the next president will face, fixing America is actually likely to be the easier – we know what to do.  Newt’s writ runs broader than that: he is also aware of what goes on beyond the pale.  He has a clear focus on who out there is a friend – and who is not.  He knows who means us ill, and he’s thought about what to do.  He is not a beginner, and he is not an amateur thinker on the subject.  That is important.
    I see now as an opportunity.  Obama has annoyed so many people that almost anyone who runs against him will stand an excellent chance of beating him.  (As I lie routinely to pollsters’ phone calls, and as I assume I am not unique in this, I do not give’s a rodent’s rectum about what polls are saying at this point about how well who runs against whom.)  I am never one to underestimate the massive stupidity of the American electorate, but it seems that this might be the time to begin some serious reversal of course.  But it’ll take somebody willing to flip off the GOP establishment – including Boehner and his pals, who are close to useless now, and will be completely useless in the coming fight.  It’ll take someone willing to come right out and say in plain English that Dodd and Frank belong in jail.  It’ll take someone willing to tell the press to f*** off, and not let them frame either the question or the debate.
    Newt’s the only one who has, does, and will.  He does not engage with the two idiot children Romney and Perry – whose “debating” has all the subtle dynamics of a nursery-school recess – but remains focused on the problem: Obama.  (To his credit, so does Cain.)  Newt is deemed “unelectable” by the “experts” in the GOP on the basis of his occasional (or frequent, if you like; I don’t care) abrasiveness, and issues in his personal life.  I don’t care what the GOP “experts” think: in my lifetime experience they’re hardly ever right.  Nor do I care about Newt’s perceived abrasiveness, this is my country we’re talking about here, it’s goddamed well time somebody got a little abrasive – maybe even “abusive”” – with those, including democrats, who work against our best interests as a nation.  His personal life doesn’t bother me either: I don’t live it, he does.  I don’t think he’s likely to start a war because he’s mad at his wife, and I think he’s intelligent enough to keep the two separate.  (I don’t, on the other hand, always think Obama, or either of the Clintons, are.)
    And I would just love to see a debate between Newt and Obama.  We could all literally see what the phrase “having him for lunch and spitting him out” means.     

  • Ymarsakar

    An Executive doesn’t really need to know much about security, that’s what advisers are for. Their role is to make decisions, and they will be provided information adequate to this task when it is needed. Certainly it helps a leader to make decisions when they have actual experience fighting a war, but making decisions for a country as complicated as the United States has no PRECEDENT, literally, in history. No precedent. There is nothing you can do in life that will prepare you for the US Presidency. Absolutely nothing. There are only varying degrees of “better” and “worse”.

  • Ymarsakar

    Like many jobs, you don’t learn how to drive, protect people’s lives, or win a war by studying the theory of it in a classroom 24/7. You eventually have to go out there and do the activity you say you are good at. Most jobs are perfected through on the job training, and there is no job as complicated and lacking in abstract simulation as the US Presidency. It requires natural talent. It requires a hard work ethic. These are the foundations, but all the abstract knowledge and theory about policies and economy, doesn’t really matter in the end. All that matters is whether they can get the job done, and the job consists of more than anyone is telling people on the news. Not even the best US Presidents had 100% across the board. They totally screwed up at times: Reagan with the Marine barracks mass death, Iran-Contra operation that was maybe started by the LEft and blamed on Reagan. But their good outweighs the bad because their basic decision making abilities and judgment were sound. That is all that really matters to start with. How good are they at adapting to the role and responsibility of the President? Everything else is “interpretation”, and electability is only an opinion, not a fact.

    People are always looking for shortcuts, magic bullets, and some other stuff, but no leader, certainly an American leader, can guarantee much of anything economically or security wise. Bush made the US secure again after 9/11 but LOOK WHAT THAT CAUSED. Obama is here precisely because of that “safety”. And now when Obama makes it safe, we need to find another terror killer to replace Obama to make us safer? So what, we become safe again and elect more Demoncrat ftards? The problem is with the system, not specifically with a lack of people wishing to change it. The US President, at this moment, should be someone who recognizes the problem, has advisers able to give him the information required to exterminate enemies, foreign and domestic, and allow the economy to recovery by itself, and has the guts to actually DO Something about the problems he has been told exists.

  • Lyte Lee

    Most qualified person in America to be president.  As liberal KGO talk show host Ron Owens remarked, even though he would love to vote for someone other than Barry this time, Newt has too much baggage.  It’s sad.  If he had just remained faithful, he could have been a two term president and one of the best in our nation’s history.  For lot’s of people on the other side, there’s just too much to love to hate about this guy.  Regrettable.


    If only … a Hermt Caingrinch could magically appear.
    I agree that Newt comes with too much baggage – so did Obama. Unfortunately for us and US, the MSM were the porters.

  • Mike Devx

    I’m hoping for a Cain/Gingrich ticket, myself.  

    Book, it might be interesting if you gave us a post on Nov. 1st, listing what you think each candidate’s worst weaknesses or problems were. (Of course we’d list em too in our comments).   Then on Dec 1st another post providing a new list.  And again, on Jan 1st.  (Provide links back to the original posts for review).  Why? To gain a more organized sense, over time, of whether any candidate has been improving on the weaknesses, as we approach the voting beginning with the Iowa caucus on Jan 3rd.

  • Danny Lemieux

    I’m warming up to the idea of a Cain-Gringrich or Gingrich-Cain team myself. They both reinforce each others’ strengths and complement each others’ weaknesses.

  • Ymarsakar

    I think maybe it’s time to re-adopt the Greek Spartan idea of a dual monarchy. Or even the Romans tripartite consul system.