At this point, why not?
« Weekend Linkage | Main | Old Dog, Same Tricks » Newt '0823 Sep 2007 10:02 am Comments (20)
Freddie is correct. The 'next' Am-Scene posting by someone named 'TimLee' pretty much explains why nominating the Newtster would lead to a crushing defeat for the Repubs. So....GO NEWT!!! Giuliani for Veep!!! Tear that M---F---ker up!!! Before they screw this country up even worse. 
Gingrich's personal life makes Rudy Giuliani look like Donny Osmond. He's a complete scumbag. So I hope he runs. I want the Republicans to be humiliated in 2008 - stripped of every possible office and left bare of all dignity and hope. No party has ever had it coming as much.
Certainly doesn't help that Newt Gingrich sounds like he was named by Charles Dickens.
Actually, it's pretty clear that Douthat doesn't really care who gets the Republican nomination - he just wants to see a Republican "break decisively" (as James Poulos puts it) with Bush. As with all of the left-wing Bush-haters, right-wing Bush-haters like Ross and James Poulos care more about damaging Bush than anything else.
Hillary v Newt? Oh boy, that does say "all the shit from the 90s with none of the fun" better than anything else. You want to immediately countermand all of a potential Hillary ticket's negatives? Run Newt Gingrinch.
Al writes: "Actually, it's pretty clear that Douthat doesn't really care who gets the Republican nomination - he just wants to see a Republican "break decisively" (as James Poulos puts it) with Bush. As with all of the left-wing Bush-haters, right-wing Bush-haters like Ross and James Poulos care more about damaging Bush than anything else." Great, the more the merrier. Bush deserves to be despised. He's not just a despicable autocrat, he's an ignorant and incompetent one to boot - and top it off with the fact that the stupid bastard seems to be pleased with what he's wrought. I even have his next job picked out for him. Make him Ambassador to North Korea. He can hang out with his fellow worthless legacy that runs that shithole and they can compare notes.
right-wing Bush-haters like Ross and James Poulos care more about damaging Bush than anything else. Actually, right-wing Bush haters care more about having Republicans win elections than they care about defending Bush's honor. It's almost funny how right-wingers have broken down into two groups: the ones concerned about the future of the Republican party and the ones concerned about being loyal to Bush. The former is part of a political movement. The latter is part of a personality cult.
Please, Newt run!! Please, please! We may actually get 60 percent of the vote if the GOP nominates ol' Newt.
Actually, right-wing Bush haters care more about having Republicans win elections than they care about defending Bush's honor. This very post by Ross is proof that you are wrong. Ross would rather support Newt, who is the candidate least likely to win but most likely to break with Bush, than someone like Giuliani, who is clearly the Republicans' best chance of winning but the least likely to break with Bush.
Al writes: "Ross would rather support Newt, who is the candidate least likely to win but most likely to break with Bush, than someone like Giuliani, who is clearly the Republicans' best chance of winning but the least likely to break with Bush." If a reptile like Giuliani is the best hope for the GOP, it has reached a stage of disrepute level with child molestors and dog murderers. That's exactly where its performance over the past decade has placed it, so bring it on.
The Presidency is beneath him Newt has always been an idea man, a big idea man. We can't waste him in the Presidency. We need him leading the convention that will rewrite the Constitution. That way, I would be able to get off the fence and just go ahead with emigrating to New Zealand.
I think Huckabee has a much, much better chance of winning the presidency than Giuliani. Unless the press continues to roll over for the GOP, Giuliani's history of cronyism, poor decisionmaking prior to 9/11, autocratic tendencies, and what his own campaign described as the "weirdness factor" are certain to sink him in the general election. I can't believe he's made it this far. I pitied Newt, for a little bit after he left the House, on the grounds that it must stink to lose the job you'd dreamed of all your life because you were so roundly held to be repulsive. But then I saw him in a panel discussion on the Clinton presidency shortly before the 2000 election, and he kept referring to him as a "minority president." It seemed like such a juvenile way to sneer at someone. And it showed that his ego is impenetrable.
Elvis E writes: "I pitied Newt, for a little bit after he left the House, on the grounds that it must stink to lose the job you'd dreamed of all your life because you were so roundly held to be repulsive. But then I saw him in a panel discussion on the Clinton presidency shortly before the 2000 election, and he kept referring to him as a "minority president." It seemed like such a juvenile way to sneer at someone." These are Repiglicans. They've been using the stupid joke of using the phrase "the Democrat Party" for decades now, and they never seem to get tired of it. Now wait for some Repiglican to say I'm doing the same by using "Repiglican." And I am. But I'm happy to admit I'm being juvenile when I do it, and I'll stop doing it when the Repiglicans stop being the anti-fag, anti-science, anti-human party, and I might even cut back on it if they'll stop that "Democrat Party" crap. But not by much.
Rudy must be doing really well in the polls against Hillary. The Hill supporters are really taking aim at rudy and giving him a whackin'!!
"Newt Gingrich sounds like he was named by Charles Dickens." Elvis, why Huckabee and not Thompson? I agree that Giuliani won't have a chance "once the mudslinging starts" as one pundit put it, (the only reason he could possibly win the nomination was that the party has essentially given up on the presidency already). But why not Thompson? I don't like him, since he's a lobbyist and think-tank man, but don't you think he has better chances?
Harold K wonders: "But why not Thompson? I don't like him, since he's a lobbyist and think-tank man, but don't you think he has better chances?" Thompson's not going to pull in the necessary votes from the crazy evangelicals - the Dobsonites. Dobson has already publicly called Thompson out, and it won't stop there. Beyond that, Fred's an empty suit, a man with no real political accomplishments. And yes, that also applied to W, but W had the Dobsonites.
Harald Korneliussen-- As to why not Thompson, I don't think he has much in the way of experience or appeal. I agree with ML&J on his undistinguished record, and I haven't seen anything that indicates that he's a particularly good campaigner. He doesn't really seem to know very much about anything. Or care. Giuliani doesn't know anything, either, but he cares passionately.
Newt actually knows stuff (and is wrong about various things, but in more interesting ways than Giuliani, in general), but has the handicap of being a stunningly unlikable person.
bksm gkmhoyrp sfvilwkx ltvxoqfyn kaom goibadnsh gunspztxh
|
Subscribe to this blog by Email 
Grand New Party: How Republicans Can Win the Working Class and Save the American Dream 
Privilege: Harvard and the Education of the Ruling Class  Recent Posts
Monthly Archives
Categories
The Atlantic, October 2008 Is Pornography Adultery?The Atlantic, June 2008 Redeeming Dubya
|
Copyright © 2008 by The Atlantic Monthly Group. All rights reserved.
Uh, he's incredibly unpopular, and he effectively squandered on of the most powerful political movements in our country's history?
Posted by Freddie | September 23, 2007 10:48 AM