Is a Newt Gingrich a viable republican candidate for 2012

Newt Gingrich is my personal favorite of all the republicans candidates for president.  He's also the smartest, and the candidate I think would hold up best in a debate.  Yet he may also be a quintessential example of how your greatest strengths can become your greatest weakness.

Gingrich is also a perfect example of how experience can hurt you in the run up to president.  For one thing, it's been over 100 years since a representative won the nomination for either party in a presidential race, and this is for a reason.  Senators tend to have trouble also for the same reason:  voters know your voting record all to well.

Yet this can be a strength too.  We know that Gingrich brings a lot of baggage, such that he's been thrice married, recently switched to Catholicism, received money as a possible lobbyist, etc.  Yet he's open and honest about these, and all the cards have been on the table for years.  There are no new secrets -- or so we'd hope -- in the closet.  We already know he's not perfect.

Every one knows Gingrich is an ardent conservative.  He can get up on stage and say the truth about America and how to better the country.  When I watched George Bush speak, or debate, I feared he'd make a mistake.  I would never feel that way about Gingrich.  He is down right one of the smartest candidates who can hold his own better than anyone.

The problem here is that he might not be seen as a serious enough candidate.  Likewise, he has a history of being very partisan.  When independents vote for president they want someone who is at least seen as someone who can cross party lines and get things done.  Gingrich does not give that impression.

However, he did work well with Bill Clinton on getting capital gains taxes cut in 1993, and this may have been the sole reason the economy stayed afloat after Bill Clinton raised taxes.  As we all know, capital gains tax cuts is the number one best way to get an economy rolling, or to keep it rolling.

He also worked to get welfare reform passed and to to get the budget balanced.  Yet these successes are seen as great on the republican side, yet independents and democrats may not see them as so great.  While democrats don't matter so much, independents do.

Another thing Gingrich has in his bag are some gaffes he's made and his personal life which hasn't been so perfect.  Yet this can be overlooked as we saw when Ronald Reagan was elected despite having gone through a divorce, and Bill Clinton was re-elected despite the Monica Lewinski scandal.

Gingrich might have been a great candidate once upon a time, yet he doesn't appear to be a good candidate today.  He's not necessarily a tea party candidate.  He's even said some things, and endorsed certain candidates, that make us think he's part of the republican party establishment.

So I think Gingrich would be a great president if he could get elected, yet for that to happen he's going to have to spark some sort of buzz.  Aside from a spark that creates a buzz, I think a vote for Gingrich would detract from any other viable candidate.

The stage is set for a conservative revolution

Obama is the president, and he still appears to be maintaining his 54% approval rating. Considering he's the most liberal person ever to live within the walls of the Whitehouse, it's surprising that more people aren't becoming liberal.

Yet, according to the latest Gallup poll, the liberalism coming out of Washington D.C. has actually made America even more Conservative.

According to the latest poll:

• 40% consider themselves conservative, up from 38% in 2008 (40% in 1998)
• 36% consider themselves moderate, down from 37% in 2008 (37% in 1998)
• 20% consider themselves liberal, down from 22% in 2008 (18% in 1998)

This is impressive because it is showing that the excessive and unpopular government programs and proposals coming from the liberal White house and Senate and House in Washington are becoming highly unpopular among the American people and driving the public away from the otherwise popular president.

Latest polls show 54% of Americans are opposed to the current healthcare reform bills on the table in Washington, and many of these are extremely scared one of the bills will be passed and make healthcare worse in this country. You have to realize most people -- like you and me -- don't trust the government as much as the liberals we (well not me) put in office.

That, coupled with stimulus and bailout bills passed by Bush and Obama that did not succeed in stimulating the economy (as predicted by this blogger) and pork filled bills that worked not to make liberal tax and spend policies look successful but show once again that liberalism never works.

A similar thing happened in 1976 when a populace ignored the fact Jimmy Carter was a liberal pent on repeating failed policies of the past (which included weakening our national defense) and voted for change instead.

Like in the case of Carter's victory, many people were so caught in being ga-ga over the potential of having the first black president that they ignored the fact he had associations with known terrorists, socialists, anti-American idealists, and the like. They failed to see Obama for what he was.

And, once again, America g0t to see the results of liberalism (a.k.a. socialism).

This poll might set the stage for a real conservative in the ilk of Ronald Reagan to stage another conservative revolution to take over the republican party and get this country back to where most of us Americans want it.

I'm personally rooting for Newt Gingrich, but I'd be happy with any real conservative who puts America first, considers all people as equal instead of targeting individual races, creeds, religions or groups of people, places his or her principles above politics, is a great public speaker, a great voice, is a motivator, and a true conservative.

Gitmo should be fixed and stay open

Newt Gingrich is on meet the depressed this morning. The discussion right now is around closing Gitmo. I was to the point I didn't see a difference between closing Gitmo and putting the "terrorists" in American prisons and keeping it open, until Gingrich spoke this morning.

Basically, what convinced me that Gitmo should be kept open, as Newt says, until the end of the War on Terror -- however long that might be, because "whatever problems that are associated with Gitmo now are going to be present no matter where you hide those people. Therefore, instead of moving the problem, we should solve the problem where it exists today."

Obama said in a speech this past week said terrorists are using Gitmo as a recruiting tool, and a greater incentive to terrorize. I think this is just another statement by Obama in which he is blaming America for terrorism. When, in fact, these terrorists are the bad buys, and they are the blame.

The blame is their extreme religious beliefs and hatred of anyone who loves material things and believes in a different God should die.

So, in summary, we should keep Gitmo open and do whatever it takes to prevent Gitmo from being a terrorist recruiting too. It can be done.

Newt says Obama's foreign policy "pipe dream."

Newt Gingrich had a great response to Obama's foreign policy regarding Nuclear Weapons, and evil nations like North Korea and Iran who threaten to create and use nuclear weapons.

We all should seriously consider the words of Newt:

To read full article click here.

Newt will look bright on top the GOP ticket

I have been thinking lately who I would like to see run for president in 2012. I have decided that Mitt Romney would be a good pick. Sometimes I wonder if he had been chosen as the VP by McCain that McCain would have won. I say this mainly due to Romney's economic experience.

But I think that Romney was probably offered the position and he denied it because he figured the momentum was on the democratic corner and it was pretty much obvious the American people wanted a change in parties. So if he wasn't the Presidential candidate he didn't want to proceed as the "voted out" VP.

Romney isn't the great speaker and motivater we need, but he is presidential material. He is a smart man who actually would make a good president. He is not some "chump" picked out for his appeal. Which (no offense) is what I think was the reason behind the Palin pick. She was not the ideal candidate, but she looked pretty alongside McCain (no pun intended).

I think Palin would make a very motivational presidential candidate some day, but I think she would be best put on the waiting block. I think she needs to do what Newt Gingrich has done the past 15 or so years and stay involved in the political arena despite the fact he is not in politics.

Newt has continued to work with Congress. He has created a website and an organization pend on creating ideas to move America forward.

Let me sidetrack a second here. I always thought Bush was a smart man, but many times you didn't get that impression by listening to him. Many times I'd watch one of his speeches and pray he didn't say something stupid. The same was true of Palin.

McCain is another man (like Romney) who's intelligence and experience alone would make him a good president, but he is too old now and he is also not a great motivator and speaker (despite the record crowd at the last convention).

Newt Gingrich, on the other hand, is a great motivational speaker. And he has a plethora of wisdom, education, and is quick whited enough to always have a good response. Never have I seen him stutter or search for an answer. He is not only appealing he is smart.

Yes. I have decided if Newt ran for president in 2012 he would be someone I would get excited about. Not only is he a man of principal, he is a man who has always been consistent and true to his word.

If Obama continues to drive his liberal agenda... If the economy continues to stay stagnant or crumble further (something we all hope doesn't happen)... If confidence in this nation continues to be low. If the war on terror worsens...

Newt will look bright on top the GOP ticket

Time for repubs to go back to conservative roots

As I'm doing my catch up on the news, I see that liberal republican Chuck Hagel (a man many call a Rhino -- republican in name only) has said that republicans lost in this last election cycle because it hasn't been moderate enough.

"We need to be more moderate," he said.

I find this funny, because how more moderate can you get than John McCain. I can't imagine any republican more willing to cross the isle and make a deal with a liberal than the good ole maverick.

I've listened to bloggers and columnists say that republicans need to reach out to moderates, democrats and independents by being more moderates. I've listened to people saying that there are more people registering as democrats that republicans.

Listen folks, the reason that the republicans have lost the last two elections has nothing to do with conservatism: It has to do with liberalism. The republicans have been TOO liberal; Too moderate.

Republicans have tried to reach out to specific groups of people like women and Mexican Americans rather than running as the candidate for all Americans. Republicans have tried to reach across the isle while at the same time compromising on their principals. That is why the republicans lost in 2008.

Republicans absolutely did not lose becasue they were partisan. They did not lose because they weren't moderate enough. They lost because they were too moderate at the expense of sacrificing the principals that made the party great in 1980 and 1994.

And, the result of this is that IN THE 2008 ELECTION CYCLE VOTERS DIDN'T HAVE ANY OPTIONS TO CHOOSE FROM. YOU EITHER HAD THE LIBERAL OBAMA OR THE LIBERAL JOHN MCCAIN.

So, when it came to voting, they really had no choices. Both those guys were one and the same. What difference does it make?

Conservatism rarely loses when its tried. The problem is that the republican party has spent too much time listening to people like Chuck Hagel and leaned to the left. That, my friends, is not how you win elections.

You win elections by separating yourself from your opponent, and providing a clear cut difference from your opponent. You win not just by saying you are conservative (as Romney, McCain and Huckabee did), but by BEING CONSERVATIVE AND ACTING LIKE A CONSERVATIVE.

The American people can see right through a republican in name only. Republicans are not stupid and could see clearly that McCain was no Ronaldus Reagan. So, with two candidates that
were basically the same

(By the way, what was the difference between Obama and McCain on illegal immigrants and on the economy? I didn't see much of a difference. How were they different on education? They both want to throw more money at this conundrum.)

So, left with no clear cut options, the American people went with the other party. So, it was not conservatives that lost in 2006 and 2009, it was the republican party.

The republican party came into power in 1980 and 1994 through the eyes of the conservative movement, and it lost its power when it listened to men like Hagel and went liberal.

It's time for real change. It's time for a real conservative to step up and take charge of the republican party. Hey, where are you Newt Gingrich? Where are you Sarah Palin? Where are you...

McCain must stay in touch with the people

Newt Gingrich, in his new book "Real Change" writes about how all Americans want change to take place in the United States, but they are aware that change will never come from Washington, it will come from the people.

He writes that, "The media tell us America is a nation divided between conservatives red states and liberal blue states. They tell us that red and blue are equally divided -- which is why elections are so close, why Congress seems gridlocked, and why nothing ever seems to get done in Washington."

"But that's simply not true. The reality is the American people are united on almost every imiportant issue facing our country."

He writes that the left believes they hold the moral superiority, and too many people on the right lack the "backbone and conviction" to overcome and challenge these myths.

He writes, "If you want to know why the American people are frustrated, it is because we Americans are experiencing government that is not responsive to the needs of the nation. We understand what we face and what needs to be done--we just can't convince anyone in Washington to listen. And Americans are getting fed up."

Gingrich is correct in that most Americans are united on what they see in America and what they want to see done in the future. You can check this link here to see four yourself what the majority of Americans think.

People in this country do not like liberalism, and history has shown this agian and again. In 1972, the liberal McGovern lost in a landslide to the more conservative Nixon, and in 1984 the liberal Walter Mondale lost in a landslide to Ronald Reagan.

Considering John Kerry was to the left of both McGovern and Mondale, Bush should have won in a landslide in 2004:

Considering these polling results from a paper I wrote in July 2004 about the Bush-Kerry matchup: 87 percent of Americans told pollsters they believed in a work requirement for welfare; 72 percent said they believed in government support of faith-bsed initiatives to help the poor; 73 percent said they believed that American inerests were more important than international organizations; 84 percent said they believed that a person who attacks a pregnant woman and kills her unborn baby should be prosecuted for killing the baby; 78 percent said they believed children should be allowed ot pray in school.

He concludes that on these big questions, "On these big questions, an average of 79 percent of the people were on President George W. Bush's side and an average of only 16 percent were on John Kerry's side. Senator Karry was rated by National Journal as the most liberal senator in 2003. His vice presidential nominee John Edwards came in fourth. The Kerry-Edwards ticket was the most left-wing since George McGovern's 1972 campaign"

He concludes that the point to all this is that George Bush should have won in a landslie in 2004, but instead won by a marginal amount, and ended up with no political capital in which to accomplish anything. And that has resulted in a very ineffective run as president, and a steady decline in his popularity.

George Bush did not run a "positive, values-orientated, big-choice campaign," but instead catered to the base, and made an effort to instil anger at his opponent by negativity, and forgot about the rest of the country. The country of people who agreed with him on 79% of the issues.

Instead of catering to all of America, Bush ran a campaign based on the polls, where if the polls showed that a certain group of people were more likely to vote for him, then he focused all his energy and resourse's on that group, and ignored the rest. This, in turn, created much envy and hate and anger.

Of course this strategy worked in 2004, but created a state of vexation among the rest of the nation. It expanded the divide between blue America and red America. And that is why the republicans ended up losing both houses in 1996.

To explain this, he writes, "The base mobilization strategy requires a scorched earth negativity that gradually turns people off because it simply exhausts them. Most voters cannot sustain being angry very long."

On the other hand, the 2004 campaign was a tragedy for the democrats as well, "because it allowed them to ignore how out of touch with America the left wing of their party was."

And if one of the left leaning democrats gets elected in 2008, the American people will get what they do not want: more taxes, more government, more regulations, more litigation.

When the republicans have done their best in the past, they have not tried to cater to one group of Americans, but to a United America as a whole. When Ronald Reagan ran in 1984 against the liberal Walter Mondale, he talked about an America that could overcome any obstacle. He talked about how if he lowered taxes and decreased governmental regulations, that the American people would have no obstacles in the way, and would have every opportunity to succeed."

Instead of being negative, instead trying to get people to hate his opponent, he focused on opportunity, positiveness, strengthening America through the military, cutting taxes on all Americans to create a better economy and more opportunities for all of America, rather than just one group of Americans.

The same thing occurred in 1994 when Newt Gingrich created his Contract with America and focused not on instilling anger among republicans and getting them to hate Clinton, but by doing just the opposite. The republicans won the house for the first time in 40 years in 1994 because of the positive message, and instilling the idea that we are one America, and together we can solve these ten problems.

As you can see by checking out my post from yesterday, the American people "speak with one voice... on issues across the board, from permitting a moment of silence for prayer in our public schools to the issue of war and peace."

And by calling to the people and sticking to the issues that they believe in, issues that have been historically represented by republicans and ignored by liberals, the republican party should have no problem winning in a landslide against the liberal democratic nominee, whether it be Hilary Clinton or Barrack Obama.

John McCain, if he can continue run an honorable campaign based on the issues that are the forefront of the American people, the issues that matter most to you and me, he will become the next president of the United States.

I know that historically if one party is in office long enough, the natural trend of the American people is to switch and vote for the other party. I know that historically if the president is unpopular the people naturally vote for the other party. However, despite these trends, McCain is still neck and neck with both Hillary and Obama, and in some polls he's ahead.

The fact that this race is so competitive despite historical trends that should give the democrats a landslide victory in 2008, gives us a good idea that both Hilary and Obama, and the entire democratic party, is still way out of touch with the majority of Americans.

Change can only come from the American people, and that is the message that John McCain should stick with in the remainder of his campaign for president. As opposed to catering to the right, or left, or even the middle, he must cater to one America.