I Don’t Believe You – Or You, Either
Robert Novak says Bill Richardson’s star is rising:
New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson is viewed by Democratic insiders as rising to the top of the party’s second-tier presidential candidates, becoming a leading vice-presidential prospect and an increasingly possible nominee for president.
Richardson’s past service as a member of Congress, U.S. ambassador to the United Nations and secretary of energy makes him a more experienced public servant than any of the first-tier Democratic candidates: Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama and John Edwards. A Mexican-American and a Westerner, Richardson is seen as strong in the critically important bloc of states that include Arizona, Nevada and Colorado, in addition to New Mexico.
While Richardson now trails his front-running Democratic rivals by a wide margin, his strategists consider him a strong competitor in New Hampshire. A victory in that state’s first-in-the-nation primary could propel him to the head of the pack.
Bah! Humbug! Which Democratic insiders? I smell another plant…meanwhile, Matthew Continetti is trying to convince me Newt Gingrich has a chance:
Among Republicans, the current wisdom concerning Gingrich has two parts. The first is that, come September, Gingrich will in fact decide to enter the race. “These guys always run,” Murphy says. “It’s what they do. It’s like chimps picking up bananas. They can’t help it.” The second part is that Gingrich’s impact will be limited to the presidential primary debates. Gingrich’s understanding of conservative Republicans, this line of thinking goes, combined with his rhetorical powers, may set the terms of discussion and win support, but ultimately voters will choose to vote for either McCain, Giuliani, or Romney. Still, after watching Gingrich dominate the debates, conservative Republicans might just say to themselves, Why not . . . Newt?
“I think Newt’s about nailed this,” says Republican lobbyist Scott Reed, who ran Bob Dole’s presidential campaign in 1996. “But when it comes to having an impact in the race . . . time will tell. This is a guy who doesn’t need a big infrastructure. He’s kind of a one-man band. He understands how to make news, he understands how to exploit his opponents’ political weaknesses, and he’s a happy warrior.” Most important, Reed says, Gingrich has “always understood how to make a dramatic entry into politics.”
Nothing is guaranteed, of course. It’s possible Gingrich won’t enter the race at all. And if he does, success is by no means assured. Gingrich may turn out to be great at thinking about running for president, but not so great at actually mounting a campaign. “Newt has never run for president and has never been closely associated with a presidential campaign,” says one D.C.-based Republican consultant. “I don’t see how you raise the money to become competitive. Gephardt won Iowa in 1988, came second in New Hampshire, but couldn’t take advantage of it because he didn’t have the money. If they don’t have any money to build on their victory, it won’t be of much use.”
Even the skeptics append caveats to their predictions, however. You never know. . . . Stranger things have happened. . . . So: There is the chance, however small, that Newt Gingrich, should he choose to run, will wake up one morning in February 2008 the presumptive Republican nominee for president of the United States of America.
And what would happen then?
What would happen then? I’ll tell you what would happen then: we’d lose the general election by the largest margin in modern history. It’s not a knock on Gingrich’s intellect, which few deny, to say that he is anathema to moderates and Democrats, and would pull in the base and only the base…thereby writing off about 70% of the U.S. population from the outset.
Next!…
What if it’s Gingrich vs. Biden, though?
Then Paris Hilton would win as an Independent…
Hmmmm.
A lot less than that. Quite a few conservatives wouldn’t vote for him either.
I wouldn’t.
I’m voting for Gingrich. I’m tired of voting for someone who I think ‘can win’– as if that were germane to actually doing the job! We tried that with Bush and look what it got us.
This presidential election I vote for the one I think would do the job best and devil take the consequences.
Newt or maybe Fred Thompson. Otherwise I probably won’t even vote.
Gingrich’s confession to marital infidelity while he was leading the charge during the Lipinski affair, and the old, but admitted story that he informed one of his wives that he was dumping her in the recovery room from cancer surgery are enough to turn off “the base” when these facts are made manifest, as they will be, should he run.
Newt, fuggedaboudit!
How about Newt vs Hillary? High negatives have both, perhaps an i-hate-this-one-less election?
Well, speaking from the vast majority of conservative/libertarian Republicans who would vote third party if a known anti-gun RINO Guilliani or Romney ends up with the nod, like we did with Dole (and we warned we would do), or might actually vote for, if not donate money or time, to a Hitlery/Obama ticket if that vindictive madman McCain were to get it, Newt’s solid ideology, if not super effective performance after the successful ’94 Republican Revolt, makes him a viable option.
We would more prefer Ron Paul, Fred Thompson, or the clever thought of Condi (especially should she get a nod to replace Cheney should he step down), but Newt’s typical politician’s behavior, especially in light of his open admissions, do not detract from his potential for the real Republican voter – including those who rejected Dole.
Now the speculation of Bill Richardson as the *real* Democrat, after all the fake hoopla of both of the unelectable Hitlery and Obama is interesting. As a long time arms rights activist, Richardson screwed up a few times but is nowhere near the anti-gun freak most Democrats oddly are and could deliver on the somewhat false promise of Howard Dean.
Time will tell who the nominees are, but if “winnability” somehow selects super RINOs or weirdos to the conservative main of the Republican party, there really will be no reason to even have the main election – it will be “NO DOLE” all over again.
In Conservative Liberty,
Burnham
Wayne, with all due respect:
….speaking from the vast majority of conservative/libertarian Republicans who would vote third party if a known anti-gun RINO Guilliani or Romney ends up with the nod…
You’re kidding, right? Rudy leads every national poll of Republicans, but you say the vast majority would vote third party if he landed on the ticket…umm, okay.
And I must say: who appointed you to speak for the vast majority of conservative/libertarian Republicans? Was there an election for spokesman I missed?…
Well, since he hasn’t actually declared, and still polls consistently higher than some of the frontrunners… I’d say counting him out would be a mistake. He is the intellectual heavyweight of the crowd and the thought of sHillary facing him in a debate (and getting her butt handed to her) positively fills me with delight. None of the others excite in the least. Romney can’t win because he’s a member of a religion that many view as a quasi-cult. McCain”where’s my strawberries” has already ailenated the base(not once but several times) and those of us that have actually read and understand the Constitution. Giulani has some baggage, but his gun control stance is typical big city clueless. Nope I hope Newt runs, otherwise it’s hold my nose and vote for Giulani.
well, i’m firmly in the Rep base, and I am anti-Newt.
Dudn’t we learn from WJC that massive intellect is not necessarily desirable in a prez? that the concomitant ego and micromanagement are a disaster for actual execution?
his dealings with his wife, his affair–again, these are examples of an egomaniac who can’t even see the foolishness of his own choices, or won’t curtail his behavior. we don’t need another person like that in the white house.
Guys! Don’t consider this as a zero-sum game. Newt could be thinking long-view, and that would work for me (LOL!)
The post is 100% accurate. Newt (like Hillary) are just too polarizing. On the other hand, A Gingrich VP spot may not have the same negative effect.
He puts the conservative imprimature on any candidate.
I’m looking at the Fred Thompson boomlet, and hoping it goes somewhere.
As a conservative/libertarian Republican, Lifetime/Benefactor NRA member and retired CDR, USNR, I’d vote for Rudy in a heartbeat. IMHO, like-minded conservatives like WLB need to consider this: on issues like guns, or perhaps abortion, what can any President (even Hillary!) do? The answer is – not much. Anti-gun laws are DEAD; even the Dems are smart enough not to bite into that buzzsaw. And with that DC Circuit court decision that we have an individual right to “keep and bear arms”, the stage is set for the Supremes to put a nail into the coffin of those who only support the parts of the Consitution that they like.
Same with abortion – the Supreme Court will decide. And pro-life folks ought not worry about who Rudy might nominate; he couldn’t possibly do any worse than Bush the elder.
As for Newt, what was it that he did that was so terrible? Some debatable, partisan-tinged congressional ethics stuff? Hasn’t slowed Harry Reid. Marriage issues? If that is the standard then more than half the politicians in the country can’t run.
Mark, with equal all due respect:
I said I was “from”, not “for.” I did choose my words reasonably carefully. You didn’t miss the “spokesman election”…
Hey though! Maybe we could have one! Would you nominate me? Please?!?! Here’s a trial slogan:
VOTE RIGHT – AND VOTE OFTEN!!! What d’ya think?
All kidding aside, the results of the Lee Aspin’s contemptible (and *wrong*) “gun owners have nowhere else to go” outlook on the Dole debacle would give my viewpoint creedance if nothing else.
The core of the Republican party is conservative/traditional Christian values based, with a secondary large grouping being primarily libertarian/less government intrusion based. There are fiscal only/social “moderate” Republicans, but they are a small minority.
The NME every election cycle tries to advocate what the Republican “moderate” choices are, while promoting the more extreme left in the Democrat party, proclaiming it “visionary” and “bold” and such. This is the overwhelming common view in that circle and they are only promoting their views, as they should. (As a side note: Isn’t it odd I do not know much on Obama’s actual views? Talk about playing the race card – our honored opponents the Lefties only ever promote his stirring motivational rhetoric, not his views to any depth. Maybe I should buy his book to see what the man really represents.)
We saw from Dole what happens when that NME leftist advocacy is successful in the primary cycle: The Republicans stay away from the election in droves and the Democrats win, no matter what flavor Democrat.
I am not thrilled with Gingrich from his mixed political performance and totally apart from his “character issues.” Being more cynical perhaps, I assume all politicians probably lack in the “character” department and am only concerned with their stated views and voting/political history.
I need to review Fred Thompson’s views extensively, as I do this surprising Bill Richardson possibility across the aisle. I know, however, Gingrich’s stated views are solid, and he didn’t actually ever betray gunnies even if he did let them (and other conservative core interests) down on a number of occassions in what he could have done before actual votes.
To me, the best semi-credible candidate so far is the solidly independent sterling character of long term Congressman Ron Paul, and he is not as much of a “dark horse” as is thought. He has my early pre-primary donations and interests.
There are also a number of other candidates I like a lot at this distance, like Condi Rice. Dick Cheney was always the person I voted for anyhow, again from his congressional record. I have heard speculation on Wisconsin Governor and now head of HUD (or one of those social agencies – I get them all confused!) *Tommy* Thompson, one of the Carolina’s (I believe) Sen. (?) Hunter and, of course, both Dick Cheney and JEB Bush all being thrown out there by people who are from their areas. Both Thompsons and Hunter are not well known to me at all, except that the former Wisconsin Governor is creditted with starting what can only be described as a welfare reform revolution when head of his state.
What I do know, however, is a terribly vindictive man like Sen. McCain who has demonstrated express antipathy to the gunnies for having taken him to task for a wrong significant vote or two in the gun wars of the late ’80′s and ’90′s (or maybe just a less-than-perfect scorecard) would be a disaster for my main Cause, even if recently he has been an advocate behind the scenes in one or two regulatory arenas related to this interest (like Dole was.)
Similarly disastrous would be the nomination of an anti-gun (only at the state/local level, of course! {puuh-LEEEASE!})/pro-abortion (not my issue, but it is a conservative one)/twice divorced (*really* not my issue, but hardly conservative “character”) like Guilliani or a similar anti-gun Romney.
Gunnies in particular, and conservatives in general, not only survived Komrade Klinton I but actually eventually triumphed like never before because of it.
Gunnies in general, and especially all conservatives, proved we would not support enough to even get elected a nominee like Dole, who really was much more moderate than either Guilliani or Romney has yet even claimed to be.
The Right Wing, the *MAIN* wing of the Republican party, will not back a social leftist. I suspect a lot of the people voting for Guilliani in particular on various polls are only doing what we gunnies used to do – poisoning the other side’s well more to our liking in polling activism, and that they are not Republicans at all nor likely to vote that way no matter the nominee.
Republican voters need a real conservative choice, again like Ron Paul. Newt may not be ideal, but to this conservative/libertarian, he would do, whereas none of the three “front runners” as declared by the NME will not.
Now don’t forget to put in my nomination for Spokesman of the Right!
In Liberty,
Burnham
True, you said ‘from’ and not ‘for’ – and I did notice that the first time. However, you seemed to act like a spokesman, nonetheless, by assuring me the vast majority of conservatives/libertarians would not vote for Rudy, despite his overwhelming lead in all recent polls, even those among Republicans.
Nevertheless, I meant no offense, and I appreciate the comments, even if I don’t agree with them…
This 1999 account really summarize why Newt makes most women’s skin crawl. His cruelty to his first two wives would be magnified beyond belief by the MSM which already dislikes him greatly. Dobson has given him dispensation without going into the details which I’m sure they hope people will forget. Being a great historian cannot make up for these despicable facts. Republicans need to refresh their memories before they fall in love with Newt’s brilliant rhetoric. Women now make up more than half the electorate.
Here are the details:
“The news that Newt Gingrich is headed for his second messy divorce, allegedly involving a longtime affair with a House of Representatives employee, has been largely ignored by news media that have not always been as sensitive to the privacy needs of major politicians.
It’s true that Gingrich is no longer in Congress, where he orchestrated the impeachment of the president of the United States over charges rising from Bill Clinton’s sexual dalliances. But Gingrich, through his many public appearances, remains a definer of the Republican Revolution, which counts family values at its core. These very values are called into question if the married speaker of the House was having an affair with a much-younger congressional employee who ultimately reported to him.
Critics of Gingrich have long made much of the insensitivity he demonstrated in serving his first wife with divorce papers while she was in the hospital being treated for cancer. Nor did news of his efforts to cut life insurance coverage for the mother of his children always endear Gingrich to his family values supporters, but it was generally assumed that his marital errors were in the past.
This time, his approach was less personal. Marianne Gingrich told the Washington Post that she was informed of the affair and the request for a divorce last May in a telephone call from Newt to her mother’s home, where she was visiting.
After first expressing best wishes to his mother-in-law on her 84th birthday, he asked to speak to his wife, who was soon reduced to tears by Newt’s news.
“I said, ‘Marianne, what’s wrong?’ ” Gingrich’s mother-in-law told the Washington Post, and she said her daughter replied, “He doesn’t want me as his wife anymore.” According to the Post: “There was a second jolt soon afterward. Newt Gingrich, now 56, informed his wife that he was having an affair with a congressional aide, a woman 23 years his junior.”
Marianne Gingrich told the Post she was “totally shocked” by the news, and her attorneys last week obtained court permission to interview Gingrich and Callista Bisek, a scheduler and assistant to Gingrich.”
Republican voters need a real conservative choice, again like Ron Paul.
This was intended to be sarcastic, right?
I don’t know who you’re calling a socialist, but if it’s Giuliani, you’re quite mistaken. The only area where is not conservative is social issues. Ron Paul is a libertarian, and thus, would also be socially liberal (I don’t know about his views specifically, but if he calls himself a libertarian, I’d assume he’d be a social liberal, with the one exception of being pro-gun). Ron Paul is also a leftist in terms of foreign policy. He may not be quite as bad as Noam Chomsky or Michael Moore, but that’s a label that could not at all be applied to Rudy (or any of the other front-runners, for that matter). As a whole, Giuliani is much more in line with mainstream conservative views than Ron Paul could ever be.
And besides, what, practically speaking, do “gunnies” want politicians to do? Not repeal the second amendment, repeal the Brady bill, give a nuclear bomb to every American citizen? I don’t see this segment as being particularly influential as the major news that relates to them occurs once in a blue moon (such as the DC handgun ban being overturned recently).
And, BTW, Duncan Hunter is a member of the House of Representatives from California, not a Senator from North or South Carolina. Tommy Thompson was governor of Wisconsin (I guess even a broken clock is right twice a day) and is a former energy secretary. The current HUD secretary is Alphonso Jackson (who replaced Mel Martinez in 2005). And last, but not least, “Giuliani” only has one “l”.
“These guys always run,” Murphy says. “It’s what they do. It’s like chimps picking up bananas. They can’t help it.”
Thank you for my laugh of the day. As for the substantive issues .. harrrumph .. Newt belongs in the Giuliani Administration’s cabinet. Self-defence rights have advanced greatly over the last 25 years. This has happened from the bottom up, and Rudy isn’t going to mess with it.
Where he is a candidate or not, having Newt involved in the debate will HELP the Republican party. His articulation of issues, his intellectually frank manner of framing the debate — he will bring interest to the primary race and focus many independents on our side of the contest. Meantime, Hillary and Obama will be engaged in an obfuscation contest and annoying the hell out of everyone who know that they’re hard lefties arguing about their costumes.
The problem facing the GOP right now is that a growing number of both the base and the close leaners are now looking somewhere else. The current GOP stance/policies are what many who joined the Reagan revolution were voting against. 2004 was the last gasp of “one more for the Gipper” as 2006 showed.
The GOP has an excellent chance of knocking off the Dems to retake the White House in ’08…[i]except[/i] that the upper circles of the GOP don’t appear to have a clue why they lost in ’06. The fact that the ‘top tier’ candidates are McCain, Guilliani, or Romney speaks volumes. The GOP seem to be planning a ‘we’re the lesser evil’ approach, and that’s what failed last time. It may very well be true, in fact it [i]is[/i] true that the GOP is the lesser evil…but the GOP voting base is sick of the lesser evil. [i]SURELY[/i] we can do better than this!
IMHO most of Guiliani’s high poll numbers is a mix of personal liking for his guts and effectiveness, and star power, plus a dose of ‘he’s not McCain’. I see trouble ahead, because even Guiliani, given his positions on immigration, social issues, and his connection to people like Bernard Kerik, is going to be in a bind trying to run for President. It’ll come down to “I’m the lesser evil.”
As far as I can see, a best-case scenario of the Big Three would lead to a GOP Presidency that has all of GWB’s bad points, and lacks the good ones. And the best-case scenario isn’t all that likely.
I listen to all these conservatives saying if someone who is not a card carrying conservative gets nominated, they will stay home. Take a look at the House of Representatives we have now with San Fran Nan in charge. That is the result of your exercising that policy. Now you are talking about doing the same thing in the presidential election. Do you really want the country to end up with a San Fran Nan or a Harry Reid in the White House? Think about it for a change without all your hurt feelings at being ignored. Which would be better for the country ,Hillary or Rudy.
A lot of people are talking about Guiliani not being a real conservative, but a lot of his views on social issues come from being a mayor, not a member of the Federal Government. I think may surprise a lot of people talking about states’ rights when his campaign really gets going. However, as a national security president, I think he has to be better then the rest of the field. Also if he splits NYC he wins NY State, and when’s the last time a dem won without NY? You’re almost talking about a guaranteed win by someone who can articulate the needs of our foreign policy, and if he does shift his more liberal social views to states’ rights argument, I think he’ll appoint the kind of judges that Bush has already appointed anyway.
Regardless of whether a Gingrich or Richardson campaign is worthy on the merits, I think stories like these fall pretty heavily into the category of political columnists having a lot copy to file between now and Iowa. You’ve got to write about something to kill time.
“And so, if the meteor does hit the earth and lead to magical regenerative powers, political analysts say the late President Lincoln’s comeback campaign will be one to watch…”
If Giuliani thinks he can win in NY, NJ, and CA and forget about the Heartland and the South, I wish him luck. He’ll need it.
And with all due respect to the conservatives who credit themselves for the Republican losses in 2006, I will say that while conservatives do have a great amount of voting power in the primaries, don’t take credit for something you had nothing to do with.
2006 was about the war in Iraq, and if Republicans don’t get how the public feels, they won’t get the White House in 2008. And I wouldn’t put much faith in polls 18 months out.
Tommy Thompson was the governor of Wisconsin before he became W’s Secretary of Health and Human Services. He left Bush’s cabinet when the first term ended. He was never Energy Secretary. Spencer Abraham was W’s Energy Secretary during the first term. Sam Bodman holds that job now. Mike Leavitt is the current HHS Secretary.