12 Comments

More the latter, I think. I can’t see Newt in any cabinet. Or perhaps more of an eminence grise, wielding influence from the wings.

“Gingmaker” ? Okay, Simon –to the woodshed with ye!

but yes, gingmaker would certainly be a newt role on the political stage for him.

Maybe Newt could keep his big mouth shut.

I saw a quote from him the other day that Hillary was going to be the winner in the election. What flapper mouth ass!

There is a certain type of fin de siecle Republican like Newt, Chuck Hagel, Arlen Spector, and columnist David Brooks (the Times) who are traitors to the cause. They criticize the President to cozy up to the MSM, to be part of the “I told you so” crowd, they mouth the same bromides, the same venalities about the Iraq war based on lies and the liberal media plays it up like this is the truth; which all goes to undercut the war and the Presdident.

Newt’s time in the sun has passed and now he trying to be acceptable to the ways of Washington. He had as much chance of being president as Chuck Hagel. None and none.

I was very hostile towards the idea of Newt Gingrich throwing his hat into the ring. It made no sense whatsoever. Life is not always fair. The polls show Gingrich with incredibly high negatives. End of story.

I remember reading an article about Jim Wright. He mentioned how rarely people ever phoned to even say hello. You have to think about this for a moment. The world of Washington, DC virtually revolved around both these men when they possessed power. Now few care whether they live or die. This has got to be hard to take. It could well encourage one to do something dumb merely to relive the good old days. Yes, Gingrich sells some books and gives speeches on a regular basis, but it’s not the same thing as being Speaker of the House.

I think Newt’s shelf life expired several years ago and isn’t going to be renewed. He’s no longer a player, except as a talking head on cable.

Newt is a smart man, and a little too clever by half. He has ideas to discuss, but considering the poor communications of the current administration, the last thing the Reps need in a nominee is someone most people don’t like. He is a firebrand. He did the thing he was born to do, namely mount a long “insurgency” against the control of the House by Democrats. Probably nobody else could have done that. But that is not a presidential temperament.

The entire pledge exercise was intended to set so high a bar to his entry that people would finally stop asking him when he would announce his candidacy.

Look for Newt in 2012. He will have his national constituency, a bipartisan reputation, and a record of providing practical solutions over vitriol. He will be positioned as this century’s Teddy Roosevelt.

So sez Ed Morrissey.

This would certainly account for his ‘pox on both houses’ stance these days. Of course, it may not be cynical–he may really believe it’s the GOP’s fault that it has failed to make the left love it.

Maybe Mr. Morrissey should stop drinking Newt Juice and sober up; Newt will be 106 by then and so out of touch reality that he will not know if he’s drinking 3.2 beer or Grand Marnier. Things move so fast on the American political scene that by 2012, the GOP will be a totally different entity than it is today. John Roberts, Sam Alito and Clarence Thomas will still be holding the line; Newt will be sucking on popsicles and Gerbers’ pablum for breakfast, lunch and dinner and shouting the same bromides.

…but he only 64. we can still need him, we can still feed him, when he’s 64. but, right, maybe 69 or 70 in 2012 is getting a little up there for a four or eight year hitch.

The intriguing thing about the new Newt is that the gung-ho partisan warrior of old has now decided that this ever-widening partisan divide has become the country’s greatest problem.

I agree –we’ve got a new Peloponnesian War going–barely without the bloodshed so far–and it’s weakening the hell out of us.

What Newt is after is some way of thinking that will build practical solutions to turn that trend before it gets even worse, before it kills our greatest national strength.

I wish him luck in this endeavor. In honor of it, I won’t even say anything mean about “progressives” –even though they make my skin crawl.

Anyway, “progressive” refers to movement, not to whether or not the movement is good or bad. If two trains are making progress toward each other on the same track, the result of the progress is a train wreck.