Poll time: Is Newt Gingrich the best choice for RNC chair?
Really?
He crumbled on the behemoth bailout.
He cuddled Nancy Pelosi on Al Gore’s global warming couch.
And he’s played footsie with Hillary Clinton on health care.
Is Newt Gingrich really the best choice for RNC chairman?
You tell me:
***
E-mail or leave your suggestions for the best person for the job.
WaPo looks at some of the contenders.
Update: Michael Steele wants the job.
Ralph Hallow has the scoop.
See what others have said
Note from Michelle: This section is for comments from michellemalkin.com's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that I agree with or endorse any particular comment just because I let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with my terms of use may lose his or her posting privilege.
Trackbacks
- This ain’t Hell, but you can see it from here » Blog Archive » Tell me I am wrong
- Political Party Poop
- MishMashZone » Yes! We Need A New RNC Chair!
- Radio Vice Online » Looking for Republican National Committee leadership
- GOP Rumors Have Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich (R) Versus Former Maryland Lt. Governor Michael S. Steele (R) For RNC Chair | THE GUN TOTING LIBERAL™
- Poll time: Is Newt Gingrich the best choice for RNC chair? « Top Daily Digest Reading
- Michelle Malkin » Newt for 2012? No, thanks.
Comments
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Categories: Newt Gingrich
Legal Insurrection
» This Is Why I Named This Blog "Legal Insurrection"
Green Room
» Never Retreat, Never SurrenderWeekly Standard
» Kristol: Ten Words To RememberRiehl World View
» Ut Oh: China Doesn't Yen For Much More US DebtGates of Vienna
» Teaching Iran to Play by the RulesWeekly Standard
» Ben Nelson's BetrayalRiehl World View
» NOW Opposes Reid Amendment
Maybe we can recruit a Libertarian, or a Constitutionalist, or maybe even an Objectivist.
Kasich and Pence have possibilities. Kasich is probably a little better known. Gingrich may be able to help but I don’t see him playing the lead role.
But anybody the GOP puts forward is going to be crucified by the Leftists (i.e. the Dems & MSM). That much is a given.
It is the middle that wins elections. Idealogues of both sides will not be swayed, but the centrists and independents of the country shift allegiances in each election. It is safe to say that the Republican brand has lost it’s ability to draw from the center. The Democrats own the Black and Latino vote, the West, and the East. We can call all we want for a restoration the principles of the Republican party, but that won’t win elections. The Replublicans need a message that resonates with independents and moderates and people of color. The moniker says it all “Grand Old Party”.
It is time for fresh ideas and an establishent of a platform that a majority of American’s can support.
I dont have a suggestion at the moment, but I havent really thought about it yet. I may mostly like Newt, but no.
So
If whomever (who/whom?) voted for the Bailout then “No”
If they were against the bailout and then changed their mind at the last minute – then Doubly “NO!!”. That just means they will sell us out again in the future! .|.
Absolutely not!
This is really the “year of the woman”,
Michelle Malkin would be a great choice,
and we know she would be loyal to our principles!
Let me try that again….
What is the middle/moderate position on abortion?
Nonsense. This election alone totally disproves that theory. As did President GHW Bush.
They might vote centerist, but they run on the extremes, especially during the primaries.
Get that wanker off the national stage. He’s already done enough damage. His conservative movement led to more tax and spend liberalism than LBJ. With that kind of leadership, its more cost effective to just be a communist
Choices ahead of Newt:
1. Alan Keyes – get him back in the fold. He has passion and commitment.
2. Sarah Palin – Let her beat the libs with a hockey stick
3. Fred Thompson – who we should have been behind in the first place, a Chuck Norris level stud
4. Rudy Guilliani – he can slap the snot out of wimp libs Brooklyn style. We could use a real tough guy.
None of them perfect, but all better than Newt
Then get that Independent Party up and going to cater to the middle. Which one is that gonna be?
Newt is a good choice if the result we have right now is beneficial.
If the speaker and originist compassionate conservative has either learned his lesson (snort) or if we could plug a Founders originist chip in his brain then great, else wise keep him in the think tank and avoid a Roveian Pete and RePete. ”
I vote for Jim DeMint.
Read Tom Coburn’s book “Breach of Trust” and let me know if you still trust in Newt Gingrich.
Do you really see Rudy as a conservative leader?
I like Jim DeMint too. Can he do both because we certainly need him in the senate.
again:Never trust a draft dodger!The man is totally useless.
Newt is one of the “big government conservatives” that destroyed the Reagan revolution and put the party in the crapper.
Unless the core of the Republican Party is gutted and replaced with patriots that know how to win, and how to keep America secure from the ravages of freeloading socialists, then YES, maybe we do need Newt…at least until a new generation of blue-bloods (conservatives NOT royalty) arrive on the scene.
I vote for Peewee Herman (Peewee – not Rueubens). After I saw what the RNC did, how could he do worse.
Alright folks settle down now! A lot of you are sounding a bit panicked here.
There is no ‘perfect’ Republican, you’re not going to find him or her so quit looking.
I say Newt is a great choice, and here’s why:
While I agree we need a complete infusion of new blood in the Republican party somebody is going to have to be a mentor to these young ones. Because as much as we would like to change it, Washington is still going to be peopled with those old school types for while longer. And Newt has the political chops and savvy to guide this new blood through the potential traps that will be set for them, he is articulate and professorial in his knowledge and is the type they can turn to for advice. Good advice.
Bobby Jindahl, Sarah Palin, Allan Keyes, those are going to be the next generation. I predict a Jindahl/Plain or even Romney/Palin ticket in 2012.
But let us not lose sight of the immediate problem- Ladies and germs, we have a communist coming to the White House. That’s a problem. And we have to stem the bleeding in 2010 by getting back the house and senate.
The good news is that I believe that Obama is going to be his own worst enemy. I have a feeling all those people whose 401K’s he decides they no longer need are not going to vote for him again.
We have an immediate problem to attend to, so let’s get to it shall we?
And I do want to say that I hope the nation notices that we on the right are not filing law suits, whining about a stolen election blah, blah, blah. We are by and large saying “Ok, we lost. Now why did we lose and how do we turn it around next time?” That shows the fundamental difference between us and the left- and THAT is the true American spirit, we are not victims! We just lost this round.
http://www.americanarmed.blogspot.com
Gingrich may have a role to play but I don’t see him as leading the charge. And he is a “big government” type. That is not what we need. An 11Bravo would know that…
I disagree. Newt seems to have an overly zealous affinity for the left. Global Warming is at it’s most basic level another attempt to hijack our country (economy, social structure, and standard of living) and put it under the control of un-elected non-scientists. Newt seems happy to do that. Newt doesn’t seem to care a lot about the constitution either.
I agree that Newt’s Global Warming stupidity and sitting on the sofa with “San Fran Nan” would make him unacceptable to the majority of conservatives as a leader. Still his tactical skills in building a movement might be helpful. But, I can’t see him leading the party. Newt is no Reagan. I’m not sure Newt is a Palin!
It’s interesting that Newt would think about chairing the RNC, since that has traditionally been more of a strategy-type position, and not a policy one. Can anyone name any positions Mike Duncan has taken? Ken Mehlman?
Of course Newt, being the idea guy he is, will never constrain himself to party budgets. Sounds like he wants an important title again to justify his existence.
Gingrich has as big an ego as Obama or McCain. We need fewer politicians in the leadership who are driven by self-aggrandizement, not more.
Goodbye Newt. Stick with teaching. It’s where you belong.
A Letter to the Republican Party
In the aftermath of the 2008 Presidential Election, through which Senator Obama was elected President, there is some discussion surrounding whether the Republican Party must become increasingly liberal in its ideology and political platform, in order to maintain compatibility with the electorate, and thereby position itself to achieve victory in future national elections.
In consideration of this strategic question, it must be observed that there are three pillars inherent in the Republican Party and its traditional voters; to wit: fiscal conservatives; national security conservatives; and religious conservatives, often referred to as social conservatives and/or values voters. Shifting the Republican platform essentially means transitioning away from morally upright positions on issues including abortion, embryonic stem cell research, homosexual marriage, and other pro-family issues of principal concern to religious conservatives.
As a Christian, and in political vernacular, often referred to by political commentators as an Evangelical, it is imperative that the Republican Party understand political support from a Christian perspective. First, it must be observed that Christians are those who have been born again through faith, that is, belief in and reliance upon Jesus Christ, the Son of God, for salvation in accordance with the Biblical commandment to believe in His name. Secondly, Christians are followers of Jesus Christ; and in this respect there is no higher priority than obeying His commandments. In this respect, it must be realized that Christians view all matters in life, including family, culture, and political matters from a Biblical perspective. The Scripture is the only prism employed to guide and direct attitudes among Christians; and there is no option to compromise on Biblical precept or principle, regardless of the repercussions. Christians obey God, and leave the consequences to Him.
Christians view themselves as Christians first; and secondly, as Americans; who love God, and country, in this respective order. Christians are not wedded to any political party, but rather abide by the timeless principles of God, as conveyed in the Bible, and strive to correctly apply these principles in all aspects of daily living, including in political affairs. It is Biblical precept and principle which guide political views and positions on issues. Please understand that this is not a matter for debate or negotiation, but rather a representation of truth and fact in the life of a Christian. Christians will not compromise on principle, because they cannot. Doing otherwise is sin. Hence, and there is no disrespect intended in the forthcoming comment, Christians will not under any circumstances abandon their positions on abortion, marriage, and other life issues. To suggest or believe otherwise is politically naïve and erroneous. Christians will not commit personal or collective sin for the sake of political gain or expediency. Hence, should the Republican Party pursue a course of diminishing or vitiating its pro-family platform, it will effectively abandon the Christian community in America, one of the three pillars of their national constituency, and their tens of millions of votes. Additionally, it should be recognized that Christians are not myopic, and hold strong, patriotic views on other important national issues. Christians support a muscular defense and security policy; the post 9/11 pre-emptive and offensive war policy to protect the nation; fiscal responsibility and low taxes; protection of gun rights; and school choice.
From a political perspective, it is noteworthy to mention that according to polling by the Christian Coalition, only 50% of Christians are registered to vote, and only 50% of those registered voted in the national election. This is a tragedy, and an irresponsible act on the part of the Christian community. Bluntly stated, from a Biblical perspective, it is sin. Christians have responsibilities as citizens of this nation; and the failure to vote, and thereby, participate in the political process is inconsistent with the “good stewardship” Scriptural principle. Nonetheless, this circumstance presents a tremendous opportunity, for the Christian community, and the Republican Party; that being, to focus attention, resources, and effort toward registering millions of Christians to vote, and to motivate them to exercise their God-given civic duty. Republican Party leaders, and strategists, together with leaders of the Christian community, would be well-served to converge on the goal of dramatically increasing voter registration among believers. It is in the interest of Christians, who love this nation, and the Republican Party, which seeks restoration to national political leadership, to do so. Accordingly, there is no need for the Republican Party to abandon its traditional platform, or Christians, in its quest for political success.
Newt jumped the shark in our household when he sat on the couch with Comrade Nancy. We have been through with the Republican Brand for quite some time too. Just give me a good conservative candidate and I will have no trouble getting behind them. No more tax and spend it is time for the Federal, State, and local governments to go on a diet and quit being a jobs corps for the incompetent.
ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒE (mo-lone lah-veh) Translation: Come and take them!
Å woman was a cute attempt at getting Hillary voters, but not a serious candidate for the leader of the conservative movement.
I haven’t seen a tough man yet that I would follow..
I do agree, that the OLD guys are no longer attractive. We have to have someone youthful like Obama to attract the young vote. Good looking to attract women. And damn strong and willing to kick butt to attract me.
Don’t see it yet, but there are years to go…
Michael Steele, absolutely.
Once, I would have said yes and stood with him. Sadly, that no longer seems to be the case as Newt seems to have partaken of the Lib-flavored Koolaid. What you SAY you believe is worthless! What is your record? You can’t taste of the Lib Tree and call yourself a Conservative!
It’s like this people: You are with us or you are against us. 100% in one direction or the other. There is NO MIDDLE GROUND!
The middle of the road is where you find roadkill and flip-flopping is what fish do in the bottom of the boat!
There is NO ROOM on our platform for candy-a$$ed, wishy-washy, flip-flopping panderers!
Say it with me now!
Let the dogs bark! The caravan moves on!
Yup DeMint can do both.
I agree with the majority of the folks here that disagree with Newt being the face of the GOP.
He does possess a quick wit and he would drive the unhinged moonbats completely insane, and for that alone he should be a consideration, but he doesn’t appeal to me personally because of three issues. Pelosi, his wife and the Bailout.
We need someone who is like Elliot Ness. Willing to bring a gun to a knife fight. Willing to put one of theirs in the morgue if they put one of ours in the hospital.
I don’t have anyone in mind at this time.
The current crop of Pubs seem to lack guts and testosterone and are unwilling to do anything to upset the national liberal biased media.
How ironic that the party that chided Dems for nominating Barack Obama “only because he’s black” (as if Barack were the first black Democratic politician or presidential candidate) would give a one-time lieutenant governor so much prominence.
I have nothing against Michael Steele (I’m glad he supports affirmative action) but there’s no doubt that he owes his stardom to his skin color.
I have no idea who the best choice would be. However, I can eliminate a couple.
Gingrich is not the best choice. He was a lighting rod.
Keyes is out, too. He sounds crazy. I live in Illinois, and when he was brought in against Obama to replace Ryan, I just couldn’t bring myself to vote for him. I didn’t want to vote for Obama, either, so I just left that line of my ballot blank.
I’d still say Steele would be one of the best choices out there, if not the best, for RNC chair. Michael Steele is certainly more to the right of Newt when it comes to believing on global warming (and sitting on a couch next to Nancy *wretch*).
http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2008/09/03/steele-gives-gop-delegates-new-cheer-drill-baby-drill/
Don’t say “Christian” when you mean “evangelical”. They aren’t the same thing and it’s a little arrogant of you to lay claim to the title to the exclusion of the rest of the country. Besides, a lot of the evangelicals voted for Obama, so you’re full of it anyway.
Oh, you mean Rahm Emanuel.
Steele looks good for a number or reasons but he lacks national exposure. He is not terribly well known but he has NOT sat next to “San Fran Nan” on the sofa pitching “man-made global warming.”
But, he is very smart and would make a worthy adversary against Barack Obama for the next several years. Serving as head of the RNC would neither ensure or preclude his running for office at any time between now and 2012.
It would give him a degree of national exposure that he lacks now. He is only a few years older than Obama so he has an opportunity to be a bridge to the future.
Steele has many, many positives. The only problems is that Tom Davis and his RINO buddies don’t want conservatives running the RNC.
Newt is a complete sellout and he’s engrained in the ol’boy republican network. NO WAY. Should be Michael Steele, he can go face to face with the One and not worry about racial issues.
AND, Michael Steele is not a wishy washy, affirmative action failure like Colin Powell.
So does that mean nobody wants Colin Powell as head of the RNC?
Well said..Bush lacks all of these…
I can’t bring myself to conclude that Bush isn’t “smart.” The man flew a supersonic interceptor for years. You can’t do that and be dumb.
But, this makes me wonder all the more about why he did so many stupid and self-destructive things in the White House.
It is not that he governed poorly. It is more like he chose NOT to govern at all. And that set up the destruction of the GOP and the win for Obama.
Newt is extremely bright and good at defining what most conservatives believe in plus he has a lot of experience in that arena. Better he act on behalf of the party than running as the candidate. For the record, John McCain should be forced to promise never to run again or he will continually “Nadar” the party’s chances. I was forced to vote for him but did not really believe in him and I heard a lot of similar comments. That is exactly why he lost.
If Newt Gingrich was meant to be our leader, he’d already would have distinguished himself in that capacity…he has not. I’ve been leery of him since he wrote a forward in a sequel to the book “Future Schock” on behalf of Alvin and Heidi Toffler…he struck me as a closet liberal.
John Ansel will scream about this, but if Newt becomes leader of GOP, kiss it goodbye for conservatives. MM has the goods on him, and if we haven’t learned anything since Arnold Schwarzenaager and John McCain ascent to prominence in the GOP..we never will.
Personally, I’d like to see Sarah Palin or Bobby Jindal take the reins. But absolutely nobody who voted for the bailout.
What does MM have on Michael Steele, I wonder? Is he a worthy choice?
I’ve been a civil engineer for nearly 25 years, and back in 1992 I was impressed with Kasich’s efforts to eliminate much of the federal highway tax on a gallon of gasoline. Unfortunately he was unsuccessful in his efforts. However, he struck me as a true conservative at the time. And another one who has attempted to reduce the federal highway tax (and basically devolve the gas tax entirely to the states) is Representative Jeff Flake of Arizona. There really is no reason why gasoline tax monies should go to Washington D.C. to get divvied up among the States (especially for these highway projects in West Virginia named after Senator Byrd). (i.e., is Byrd the inspiration for the Alfred Hitchcock horror movie??).
Anyway, anyone willing to support the efforts of eliminating the federal gas tax is likely a full blooded conservative, and thus has my support.
I have severely mixed feelings about this. Newt showed brilliance in the ‘94 take over but like many great revolutionaries fumbled the ball on transforming the party, i.e. making the changes permanent. Within a couple of years Republicans were back making deals with democrats and that was it. Like McCain, he has far too much “reaching across the aisle” baggage to be taken as a serious conservative.
On the other hand, who else is there? Romney? Please. Huckabee? Nooooo. And that’s the problem. No one else has done anything remotely as impressive as Newt when it came to taking back congress, which is what must be done in 2010. And most of the alternatives are as bad as he is when you consider the other measures. So I guess it’s hold our noses and go with Newt. Desperate times call for desperate measures and all that.
Michael Steele strikes me as smart but “blah.” MM can also comment on some of the non-conservative positions he has taken. Definitely no one who voted for either bailout.
Say what you will about goofy Ron Paul, but Cavuto had him on today and he does an excellent job explaining the U.S. econ situation. He puts it in terms simple enough for someone with the mentality of an Obama voter to understand.
Dick Morris was really plugging http://www.goptrust.org tonight on Hannity. They’re the bunch that collected $$ for all the Rev. Wright commercials near the end of the election. Morris says they’re already in place (in GA) and are for conservatives what MoveOn is to libs.
beenthere, at the risk of offending you, you aren’t getting it. 100% one way or the other. NO MIDDLE GROUND! No more holding our noses, closing our eyes or settling for less than what we, as American citizens need, want and deserve. Is that too much to ask to bequesth to those generations that follow?
Jindahl, Palin and others are the type of conservatives we need to support. They are out there. Right now, they aren’t well known or popular. Keep looking. You know that cream rises to the top of the bottle!
“Let the Dogs bark! The caravan moves on!”
I would to see someone lead the GOP who does not drink global warming Kool-aid.
No. He swallows too many liberal talking points and has quit articulating conservative values. Maybe he speaks well in conservative circles, but looses it when the Dems set the agenda.
A leader for the party needs to do just that…LEAD!
Actually, I think I do. All that I am suggesting is that as a strategist, organizer, etc. Newt has a very strong resume. He is fully the match of Dean, which is what I see him as being and that is what we need now. He should not be a candidate, however, for too many reasons to list.
the only thing more ignorant than lining-up the deck chairs on the Titanic is fighting over who’s going to sit where…1/2 this country just elected a new hitler and our less than 1/2 is looking for a new chamberlain…let’s all just move to Alaska and start over…moderates+ independents+ old line republicans=losers…they wanted the Christians and conservatives out of the way and gave away the future of the entire free (and non-free) world to boot…It’s over…ignorance won…the truth is pornography and no one is going to say that corruption made the difference in the election not the republican platform…but I will.
Losers.
Do you realize that most of the commenters here believe that Newt is too liberal? Unbelievable! There’s only one commodity to the right of Newt- Ann Coulter. You should nominate her!
Enjoy permanent minority status.
I vot for Michael Steele.
I also vote for lionheart aka crapweasel to go back to Daily Kos as his Mama is calling him to come out of the basement.
I voted no. Newt has many good ideas and I listen to what he has to say. But I get the feeling that he is so yesterday.
Fred would be a good choice because of his understanding of conservative principles. I think Michael Steele would be good.
No to Michael Steele
I thought the person who mentioned former Senator Rick Santorum (sp)had a great suggestion. Good man.
Michael Steele would appear as blacksploitation to counter Obama. It would appear racially motivated.
Chickenheart,
Idiot.
I know its hard to keep up sometimes, but since you really didnt read any of the posts, obviously…
Newt hasnt been a “conservative” for quite some time. Just because in the antiquated hippy circles you run, that people believe he still is, seriously shows how uninformed you are about politics.
Its being listed as to why he hasnt been a conservative for years. Also left from the list is the fact that he is a proponent of amnesty for illegal aliens.
But thanks for paying attention, and and actually showing you’ve got nothing better to do than call people “losers”, when you have not a single hint of whats being talked about.
Arrogance and Ignorance…the hallmark of the Democratic Party.
Done with you.
I would like to learn more about Steele.
He and Newt are the top contenders apparently.
I like both guys. But my choice is Newt until I see more information on Steele.
When all the Repubs can do is nominate McCain, another Bob Dole, they have lost all my respect. I have voted with them for a number of elections due to the other choice. But their leaders offer no meaningful, rational, and thoughtful arguments about why this country needs to follow a conservative agenda–one that puts liberty above anything else. They have caved again and again to the political emergencies of the day. And they have no spokesperson with any skills at communicating their so-called agendas. Without a great communicator of the ideas of liberty they are a bad joke in the political arena today. And Newt is a paradigm case of what I am talking about.
Santorum, young and edgier than Steele or Newt.
A good ad agency could change whole picture. Instead of rich, old, white men. Joe the Plumber , and Sarah, more patriotic, and real clear cut reasons to be a conservative. 80% of America is still patriotic, and still wants government out of their lives. It is never articulated as a nanny government versus freedom.
We don’t have much time as 50% of America is on the teet right now. Soon they will have illegals, and that will be that. This takes a radical facelift, not same ol’ same ol’.
The Republican Party desperately needs idea men. Gingrich is one of the few Republicans who is a man of ideas, and mainly of conservative ideas.
I do not like him sitting down with the likes of Pelosi, but that is the price of doing political business in what is increasingly a socialistic nation.
How bout’ .. JOHN BOLTON?
Should be Steele. Has his skin color helped him, yeah, probably.
But the RNC, besides everything else he does, is the public face of the party, especially when it is the party out of power.
Gingrich has had some moral issues, and the TV ad with Stretch Pelosi, well, no.
Steele is telegenic, smart and conservative, and can explain the conservative position.
There is no conservative party in the United States.
William Amos postted this comment from Michael Steele,
I really have no favorite for the RNC chair, but I am curious as to what others think of Steele’s assessment of the situation and the time perhaps needed to “get back.”
A quick turnaround would be nice, but given the Democrats PR skills, a disengaged electorate, and a media willing to provide the Left with a megaphone and cover, Steele’s timeline is probably what we are looking at.
Not pretty, but reality.
Ooops, #156 makes me wonder about Steele.
The British Tories have become Labour-Lite, from what I can tell, and if that is what Steele is advocating, the Michael Medved/Charles Johnson/Christine Todd Whitman Democrat-ization of the GOP, that is a step in a very wrong direction.
Many party leaders learned the wrong thing in 2006, and it looks like some want to take it forward.
I will say, I do NOT blame the GOP for Mccain. They didn’t pick him, the primary voters did. He had the cross-over and Dem voters undivided, while Thompson, Romney, The Huckster, Hunter and Tancredo all split various types of conservatives.
Local state parties that allow crossover voting, and early primaries in lib states, that is what caused the problems.
Texas, Oklahoma and Utah should have earlier primaries. Because real Republicans from Republican states should have a greater role in choosing the Republican candidate.
To those calling for a “new plateform more inline with modern thinking”, or somesuch liberal idea:
As the stats for this election come in we find that 80+% of those who pulled the level for Obie thought that he was either (in descending order of size):
(1) he’s give bigger tax breaks than McCain.
(2) more fiscally responsible than McCain.
(3) both 1&2
That Obie’s last minute commercals (go to his “tax facts” website, plug the #s in & it gives you the supposed amount McCain & Obie would save you…), shows how wrong the moderate conserv Republ.s were.
What cost us the election was “The McCain Three-step”: one step conservative, one back, one to the side during each chorus.
Think about it: everytime he’d do something conserv. he’d start upward in the polls – even amonst those voters who said they were in the middle. He then, soon as the polls showed a gain he *immediately reversed field* and did something as exactly opposite as possible.
Instead of completely repudiating his previous fiscal positions, he did a “well, I was right, but we have to have the tax-cuts for now…”. In otherwords, he exactly echoed Obie’s position, I guess so as not to upset Obie.
This left him open to what happened in the campaign: at the last minute Obie reversed field & promised his phony tax-cuts to 90% of the people. With the MSM behind him, his previous positions were buried, while McCain’s tax-cut promises were buried. They used McCain’s anti-GWB taxcut words against him!
IF McCain had a solid conserv. message frm the beginning, the Obie reverse-field wouldn’t have worked b/c people would have remembered the difference even if they didn’t remember specifics.
He also missed the opprotunity to teach why Conservatism works because McCain has NEVER been a Conservative: he’s been a McCain! Whatever advances his career, whomever he has to backstab, he will.
I pointed this out using the voting record stats from the CU website. You can’t just look at an aggragiate % and learn anything.
Newt very well could be our best choice for RNC but sadly the democrats with the new york times and all have already removed him. Don’t you remember…he was being to effective as Speaker so they told us to get rid of him….we did…look for some one else who has no record of effectiveness
Two more things:
People are starting to say “there will be no more Reagans”. That might be true. But to say that w/o analyzing the what & why RR was so great, (even with his flaws – and yes he wasn’t perfect,) is simply idiotic.
What made RR great? We’ve had people more ideologically Conservative, certainly. We’ve had people who were as good at communicating. Its the 2nd point that we breakdown on.
We’ve had people who were as good at communication: elequent and knowledgable, Keyes for example. So what difference between an RR and an AK?
Reagan NEVER missed a moment to TEACH THE REASONING BEHIND conservatism. That is the difference. RR, as part of his job prior to being President criss-crossed the country, talking to the Average Joe. He knew that people are instinctually Conservative, but that unless taught differently, taught the reason behind the instinct, they could be baffled and blinded by BS. We have to start teaching again. But, we need to mend the previous mistake: We cannot rely on Our Leaders to teach! WE must do it, each of us!
Point2: Rush is rght: Conservatism work whenever it is used. But, like another thing that works whenever used, abstinence, there are going to be blarney-tounged people who’ll tell us we’re wrong, we’re old-hat, we need to get w/the times! The Country is Center-Right, or Center, or Center-Left.
Well, they’re wrong. But even if they weren’t, so what? The Liberals have taught lies to convince people to move Left. Let us teach truth to turn us back to Constitutionality! Let us take the tactics of the Left, but use truth to their lies. Let us teach the basics and convince people so they cannot be fooled again.
It would be nice to find someone who doesn’t try to push social conservative agenda items to the fore in every election.
Sorry, hit post before I was done.
Those issues don’t seem to be resonating with fewer and fewer voters over time (see the slim margin of Prop 8 in California for a good example). To continue pushing these issues (IMHO) alienates at least as many voters as it attracts.
I know this statement will be unpopular with many here, but I fell it’s the truth. Trying to push candidates based on their stances on abortion, or gay marriage, is unwise. Even when we elect a pro-life candidate, as we did with Reagan, Bush Sr., Bush Jr., they don’t change the status quo on the issue. . .so in effect the party has been alienating tons of voters for no appreciable return.
Yashmak #173
You are as far off as can be, but the reason – because of false choices and patterns of thought laid on our citizens by 60yrs of increasing Liberal indoctrination – would take much more space to lay out than I have here. The only way to explain how the division between fiscal and social Conservatism is artificial and nonsensical, indeed a dualism used to divide our house, is to read “The 5000 Year Leap”, “The Forgotten Man”, the Federalist Papers, the Ben Franklin autobio, the other thoughts about Freedom, community, and society from our Founding Fathers.
Fiscal Conservatism descends from Social Conservatism. That is why the fiscal would be impossible w/out the social. Why do you think they went after the social underpinnings first? We find ourselves at this pass, but it’d have impossible to move us here if our social underpinnings hadn’t been eaten out from under us by the Termite Liberals.
BTW, Yashmak, let me point out that abortion was in the process of being voted on in numerious states, and well on its way to defeat – the pollings the Libs did showed that it, along w/ERA and other such were going on to a defeat. A resounding defeat on abortion, and it wasn’t men who were driving that truck!
Why do you think the Libs go @pesh!t whenever an overturn of Roe v Wade is in the off-ing? It would just go to the states, for a vote by the people! There are still too many unbrainwashed women… and a few men… who oppose abortion. That’s why your comment about alienation is so dead-wrong.
The Libs know this – their frontmen in a double-dozen thinktanks, non-profits, etc know this. They also know that Roe v Wade is bad law, and as such, will be a chink in their takeover. I’ll know they’ve succeded when they’re ok with over turning Roe v Wade and willing to bump it back to the states. It’ll mean they’ve tested and found enough brainwashed to be confident of victory.
We can call all we want for a restoration the principles of the Republican party, but that won’t win elections.
Funny, but I recall it winning two landslides for Ronaldus Magnus. Conservatism wins every time it’s on the ballot. It just hasn’t been on the ballot since 1994 and arguably even since Reagan’s last landslide.
Given today’s political and social environment after this election, does anyone really think that the Republicans can overturn Rove v. Wade? If so, I think you are delusional. Maybe why that’s why Mc Cain was the candidate. I agree it’s bad law, and I think that abortion is an abortion of life and liberty and every thing I want to see happen in this country.
But look at the battle in CA for the Prop 8 amendment. Voting, alone, is not winning these battles anymore. The Judiciary will be deciding many similar issues. That isn’t what we want, but the left is thumbing their noses. They are better organized.
I think the Republican party had better choose its battles, at least for the next 8-20 years. And the abortion issue is not going to win over enough voters to decide any Presidential or mid-term elections in that time, in my opinion.
The differences in our society are not only along abortion lines. In fact, they are much broader. And we conservatives are losing in the trenches, aka the education of our children and young adults.
Wow! I’ve never been called a hippy/idiot/Kos-troll/mama’s boy before. And you don’t even know me! Ahhh, the bravery of anonymity.
First of all, I’m not really a hippy, although I did wear my hair pretty long back in the days when I had hair.
Second, idiot seems a bit strong for my post… although I did call you losers, I meant it in the sense that the Malkin army of hardcore, lock-stepping right-wing robots are destined for permanent minority status (as in losing elections).
Third, I’m not a Kos troll. I am very conservative: small govt., balanced budget, control the borders, pro-life, strong military, etc. I voted for Reagan twice, Bush 41 twice, Dole once, Bush 43 twice, and that idiot McCain once (actually, I was voting for Palin and against Obama). There is nothing in my posts that contradicts this fact. But since I disagree with you on an issue of whether or not Newt is conservative, you resort to name calling.
Newt has not caved to amnesty or global warming. Since I don’t know you personally, I can’t make the blind statement that I am more educated than you on this issue… however, I know that I am well educated on the issue, so I know what he believes (for a synopsis, see Newt’s American Solutions “Platform for the American People”). I’ve read it thoroughly, and am convinced that he is NOT an amnesty suckup NOR a global warming alarmist.
What bothers me more than anything is the mindless sycophancy of the posters here. Michelle could do a 180 on any issue, and the same but-kissers that agree with her on this post would be agreeing with her on the opposite.
There I go, hurling insults again. But it looks like its a moot point- looks like Newt is not pursuing it (per Drudge about 10 minutes ago).
No hard feelings here- I still love Michelle, but guess what… its okay to disagree with her sometimes.
Yes, you are quite brave! Congratulations!
It is always interesting to hear someone with the views you espouse accuse another of marching in lockstep w/anything. But, of course, we all tend to measure others by comparison w/ourselves.
The same thing was said of people who listen to Limbaugh, and the effect is well understood — except to a Liberal
mindemotion.Liberals travel by herd instinct, mobocracy, and so they see everyone as following some pied-eyed piper off the lemming cliff. The actual phenomena involved with both Limbaugh’s show and MM’s board is properly understood as moving in the opposite direction. Not top-down, but roots to leaves.
Rush himself has talked about and accurately described this. It is usually included in the explanation of “Dittos”. A person would call and tell how his show has shown him that there were other like-minded people out there. After the next few, in order to save time someone said “Dittos”. It became more and more common. I was aghast when Rush explained this to those Libs who called and complained about Rush-bots. I thought, (again we measure others by ourselves) that now the Libs would change tactics, since they knew why we were finally making ourselves felt. It has taken all this time for them to understand what the Soviets & Chinese know: you control a people by isolating each member. That’s why they want the “fairness” back.
You think that because you are a creature of the herd, that we too are all just followers. Fine, glad to hear it.
Some of us have studied, and learned, and lived many years, using our intellect enlightened by experience to draw conclusions based on the data we gather.
Conservatism is the way, at least for a while longer. When Conservatism is really no longer the answer, then at that point we’ll have left the Constitution completely behind and the only recourse will be the spilling of blood.
Why such an unyielding view? Because The Constitution is a Conservative Document. Don’t tell me about what Liberal used to mean – it doesn’t mean that anymore, and hasn’t for a very long time. The 3 things granted by The Creator are Life, Liberty, and (originally) The Right to Own Property.
1. Life: because w/o that there is no reason for the other two.
2. Liberty: w/o that you are a slave, owned, a piece of property yourself and #1 becomes meaningless.
3. Right to Own Property: this is simply the right to keep the fruits of your labor. If someone can willy-nilly take those fruits you are a slave. Without this #s 1&2 are meaningless exercises in semantic games.
Now, explain again, please: where is this “Old fashioned” stuff wrong? You talk of mindless butt-kissing, but have you thought of any of this? If you have, why doesn’t it come out in your comments?
NO ONE is better at explaining conservative principles than Newt Gingrich….hands down…end of story. His background as a college professor is evident in ANY of his speeches. With that being said, he would not necessarily become the nominee for 2012. Gingrich along with Haley Barbour lead the Republican party out of a 40 yr wilderness.
Sounds like he might be backing Steele, which is fine with me. We know racism will be thrown at the Republicans over the next 4 yrs, why not MAKE them throw that term at Steele and watch him eat them alive!!!!
As much as I like Newt at times I do disagree with him, and he comes with enormous baggage. I’d like to propose one of the following:
Mike Huckabee
Mitt Romney
As possible candidates sure there must be others too.
Right now, Michael Steele is my choice, but I open to other options if and when they present themselves.
Huckabee – An amnesty supporter
Romney – An incompetent who issued an executive order requiring MA clerks to issue marriage licenses to same sex couples. There was no precedent or law that required him to do that. He could have just as well ordered them to NOT issue marriage licenses to same sex couples. The MA Supreme court actually had ZERO power to enforce their ruling so they told the legislature to act on it. But Romney beat them to it and they all just sat back with big grins on their faces!