Former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich, R-GA, paid a visit to the GOP members of the House of Representatives who refused to leave the Capitol when Nancy Pelosi and her Democratic lapdogs voted to go on vacation rather than deal with the oil drilling issue.
Gingrich expressed support for the floor protest and chided Speaker Nancy Pelosi for being more concerned about selling her new book than doing something about drilling for oil here at home.
The former Speaker also suggested that Barack Obama should encourage Pelosi and his fellow Democrats to allow an up or down vote on offshore oil drilling, given that Obama has hinted he could support such a measure, albeit on a limited basis.
However, as Michelle Malkin notes, it was only a few months ago that Gingrich was making nice with environmentalist extremists on climate change and even went as far as making a commercial with Nancy Pelosi on the subject, parroting some of Al Gore's hysteria.
But even Johnny-come-latelys are welcome to the new movement to get something done in this country about our own vast oil resources.
If a visit from Newt did the job of encouraging GOP House members to continue in the fight for energy independence, then the whole thing was worth it.
After all, it was Newt who led one of the most historic new movements in the House in the early 1990s--the 'Contract with America'--resulting in the GOP taking control of Congress for the first time in decades.
Showing posts with label Newt Gingrich. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Newt Gingrich. Show all posts
Thursday, August 07, 2008
Saturday, September 29, 2007
BREAKING NEWS: NEWT WON'T RUN IN '08
Fox News has confirmed that former U.S. Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich will not seek the Republican nomination for a bid for the White House in '08.
According to Fox News' Senior correspondents Chris Wallace and Carl Cameron, Mr. Gingrich decided that it was unrealistic to expect to raise 30 million dollars in the final quarter of 2007, a feat that has never been accomplished in a three-month period.
Gingrich had flirted with the idea of throwing his hat into the ring this year and stated that he would run if he could raise 30 million dollars. The former Speaker was set to announce tomorrow the formation of an exploratory committee that would have set in motion the fundraising process.
However, Mr. Gingrich concluded after carefully assessing the lay of the political landscape that such a goal was much too lofty. In addition, his candidacy would have further split the conservative vote among Republicans, most of whom at this point indicate that they prefer Fred Thompson.
With Gingrich in the race, Rudy Giuliani stood to gain the most. A Gingrich candidacy would have meant fragmentation for GOP conservatives, with Giuliani clearly reaping the benefits.
A few national polls show Giuliani ahead of Fred Thompson by anywhere from 3 to 6 percentage points. Other polls show Thompson ahead of Giuliani by 3 to 5 percentage points.
However, when one considers state-by-state straw polls and early data indicating the voting preferences of those most likely to vote in the various Republican primaries, Fred Thompson is clearly ahead of the game. Ohio is the latest state to join the Thompson bandwagon.
Information we have been able to gather around the country shows that Thompson is ahead in Ohio, Indiana, South Carolina, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Kentucky, West Virginia, Florida, Alabama, Georgia, and Missouri.
Had Gingrich entered the race, at least half of these states would be a toss-up between Thompson and Gingrich.
Giuliani is ahead in states that in recent years have tended to support Democrats, such as New York, New Jersey, California, and Pennsylvania. However, Pennsylvania is ripe for the picking for a strong conservative candidate such as Thompson, with the state's rather large GOP issues-oriented groups such as gun owners and social conservatives.
This means that Giuliani will need to begin showing strength in areas that are perfect for a candidate such as Thompson. So far, we do not see Giuliani winning a single primary in the South and Southwest, two areas he desperately needs in order to win the GOP nomination.
With Gingrich out of the picture, don't be surprised by a Thompson sweep of everything south of the Mason-Dixon and west of the Mississippi, with the exception of California.
According to Fox News' Senior correspondents Chris Wallace and Carl Cameron, Mr. Gingrich decided that it was unrealistic to expect to raise 30 million dollars in the final quarter of 2007, a feat that has never been accomplished in a three-month period.
Gingrich had flirted with the idea of throwing his hat into the ring this year and stated that he would run if he could raise 30 million dollars. The former Speaker was set to announce tomorrow the formation of an exploratory committee that would have set in motion the fundraising process.
However, Mr. Gingrich concluded after carefully assessing the lay of the political landscape that such a goal was much too lofty. In addition, his candidacy would have further split the conservative vote among Republicans, most of whom at this point indicate that they prefer Fred Thompson.
With Gingrich in the race, Rudy Giuliani stood to gain the most. A Gingrich candidacy would have meant fragmentation for GOP conservatives, with Giuliani clearly reaping the benefits.
A few national polls show Giuliani ahead of Fred Thompson by anywhere from 3 to 6 percentage points. Other polls show Thompson ahead of Giuliani by 3 to 5 percentage points.
However, when one considers state-by-state straw polls and early data indicating the voting preferences of those most likely to vote in the various Republican primaries, Fred Thompson is clearly ahead of the game. Ohio is the latest state to join the Thompson bandwagon.
Information we have been able to gather around the country shows that Thompson is ahead in Ohio, Indiana, South Carolina, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Kentucky, West Virginia, Florida, Alabama, Georgia, and Missouri.
Had Gingrich entered the race, at least half of these states would be a toss-up between Thompson and Gingrich.
Giuliani is ahead in states that in recent years have tended to support Democrats, such as New York, New Jersey, California, and Pennsylvania. However, Pennsylvania is ripe for the picking for a strong conservative candidate such as Thompson, with the state's rather large GOP issues-oriented groups such as gun owners and social conservatives.
This means that Giuliani will need to begin showing strength in areas that are perfect for a candidate such as Thompson. So far, we do not see Giuliani winning a single primary in the South and Southwest, two areas he desperately needs in order to win the GOP nomination.
With Gingrich out of the picture, don't be surprised by a Thompson sweep of everything south of the Mason-Dixon and west of the Mississippi, with the exception of California.
Monday, September 17, 2007
Evan Bayh Throws Down Gauntlet on '08 Election
U.S. Senator Evan Bayh, D-Indiana, threw down the gauntlet on the 2008 Presidential, Senatorial, and Congressional elections Sunday by stating that 'this will be a referendum on the Iraq War.'
The Senator's brief statement could well sum up the campaign strategy of the Democratic Party in 2008.
Sensing that Americans have assessed the failures of the Democratic Congress in fulfilling campaign promises in 2006, i.e., the shameless pork barrel spending and the failure to do something about earmarks, the corruption and scandal revolving around key Democratic members of Congress, and the failure of Democrats to unite on the subject of Iraq, apparently the Democrats have decided that the only way they can win is to run once again on the weaknesses of the Bush war plan in Iraq.
In describing the campaign strategy envisioned by the Democrats, Mr. Bayh stated that 'Americans want a change of direction and strategy in Iraq, and they sense that if they vote for Republicans they will be voting to continue the course set by President Bush.'
The thing that Mr. Bayh is describing is essentially a replay of the 2006 election strategy employed by the Democrats. They made the 2006 Congressional and Senatorial elections a referendum on the Iraq War, and they won.
They are hoping that lightening will strike twice in the same place.
It is essential, however, to consider one key variable. Despite the Democrats' insistence that the 2006 elections were all about the Iraq War, the 2006 elections were not all about the Iraq War.
The explanation that Republicans lost Congress due to the Iraq War is a rather simplistic one. In actuality, they lost because of several high-level scandals, the last of which occurred just weeks before the election, and because of the failure of Republicans to be real Republicans.
Jack Abramoff and Mark Foley hurt Republicans badly. And the voters decided that Republicans needed to be punished at the polls. This time, however, the Democrats are sorely mistaken if they think the voters will be any kinder to them in light of their own scandals, which are many. Norman Hsu waits in the wings to wreak havoc on any number of key Democrats, and he is only the tip of the iceberg.
Further, the Republican controlled Congress of 2004-06 dug its own grave by refusing to address out-of-control spending, which ran up huge budget deficits. Traditionally Republicans have insisted on balanced budgets and controlled government spending.
The fact that Republicans failed to be real Republicans cost them at the polls. As Republican Presidential hopeful Mike Huckabee states, 'Because of the fact that we did not deliver on our promises, the American people fired us.'
It is already abundantly clear that the Democratic Congress has failed to deliver on its promises. Can they really expect the American people to be any kinder to them than they were to Republicans in 2006?
These are key issues that could well tip the scales in favor of Republicans in 2008.
But the road is fraught with danger at every turn. The Iraq War will be a major issue for good or ill. Republicans cannot win by merely talking about the successes we have had, and it is abundantly clear that we have had many successes. And yes, we love our troops, and they have performed magnificently. However, we must go far beyond that.
Any Republican strategy for victory must acknowledge the failures of the Bush administration in conducting this war from 2002 until the summer of 2007. The surge has worked, but the things we were doing prior to 2007 were a recipe for disaster.
Further, a Republican strategy for victory must include a clearly stated objective with a clearly stated step-by-step plan to win this thing outright, and then gradually get the troops out.
More than likely, a winning Democratic strategy will involve the very same thing, though they would be loathe to admit it. And thus, the Republican and Democratic strategies will be more or less the same, with the expected differences in semantics.
The bottom line? The Republicans can win. And the odds are much more in their favor than Newt Gingrich's prediction of 80-20 odds in favor of the Democrats.
The Senator's brief statement could well sum up the campaign strategy of the Democratic Party in 2008.
Sensing that Americans have assessed the failures of the Democratic Congress in fulfilling campaign promises in 2006, i.e., the shameless pork barrel spending and the failure to do something about earmarks, the corruption and scandal revolving around key Democratic members of Congress, and the failure of Democrats to unite on the subject of Iraq, apparently the Democrats have decided that the only way they can win is to run once again on the weaknesses of the Bush war plan in Iraq.
In describing the campaign strategy envisioned by the Democrats, Mr. Bayh stated that 'Americans want a change of direction and strategy in Iraq, and they sense that if they vote for Republicans they will be voting to continue the course set by President Bush.'
The thing that Mr. Bayh is describing is essentially a replay of the 2006 election strategy employed by the Democrats. They made the 2006 Congressional and Senatorial elections a referendum on the Iraq War, and they won.
They are hoping that lightening will strike twice in the same place.
It is essential, however, to consider one key variable. Despite the Democrats' insistence that the 2006 elections were all about the Iraq War, the 2006 elections were not all about the Iraq War.
The explanation that Republicans lost Congress due to the Iraq War is a rather simplistic one. In actuality, they lost because of several high-level scandals, the last of which occurred just weeks before the election, and because of the failure of Republicans to be real Republicans.
Jack Abramoff and Mark Foley hurt Republicans badly. And the voters decided that Republicans needed to be punished at the polls. This time, however, the Democrats are sorely mistaken if they think the voters will be any kinder to them in light of their own scandals, which are many. Norman Hsu waits in the wings to wreak havoc on any number of key Democrats, and he is only the tip of the iceberg.
Further, the Republican controlled Congress of 2004-06 dug its own grave by refusing to address out-of-control spending, which ran up huge budget deficits. Traditionally Republicans have insisted on balanced budgets and controlled government spending.
The fact that Republicans failed to be real Republicans cost them at the polls. As Republican Presidential hopeful Mike Huckabee states, 'Because of the fact that we did not deliver on our promises, the American people fired us.'
It is already abundantly clear that the Democratic Congress has failed to deliver on its promises. Can they really expect the American people to be any kinder to them than they were to Republicans in 2006?
These are key issues that could well tip the scales in favor of Republicans in 2008.
But the road is fraught with danger at every turn. The Iraq War will be a major issue for good or ill. Republicans cannot win by merely talking about the successes we have had, and it is abundantly clear that we have had many successes. And yes, we love our troops, and they have performed magnificently. However, we must go far beyond that.
Any Republican strategy for victory must acknowledge the failures of the Bush administration in conducting this war from 2002 until the summer of 2007. The surge has worked, but the things we were doing prior to 2007 were a recipe for disaster.
Further, a Republican strategy for victory must include a clearly stated objective with a clearly stated step-by-step plan to win this thing outright, and then gradually get the troops out.
More than likely, a winning Democratic strategy will involve the very same thing, though they would be loathe to admit it. And thus, the Republican and Democratic strategies will be more or less the same, with the expected differences in semantics.
The bottom line? The Republicans can win. And the odds are much more in their favor than Newt Gingrich's prediction of 80-20 odds in favor of the Democrats.
Tuesday, August 14, 2007
The Changing Complexion of GOP Race
The Iowa GOP Straw Poll on Saturday was only a preliminary poll. No delegates were won by any of the participants. Yet already there has been a casualty as Tommy Thompson drops out of the race after posting a sixth place finish in a state where he desperately needed to be in the top three.
With former candidate Jim Gilmore dropping out of the race earlier, the slate of announced GOP candidates has now been whittled down to eight. Of those eight, only five stand a real chance at gaining the Republican nomination, and even two of those are highly doubtful.
Among the announced candidates 'the big five' are Rudy Giuliani, Mitt Romney, Ron Paul, Mike Huckabee, and Tom Tancredo.
Although John McCain keeps campaigning and insists he will not drop out, it is difficult to imagine his candidacy going anywhere. A look at the landscape of the primaries will reveal that the candidate in all likelihood will win absolutely no states.
Duncan Hunter, the highly respected veteran California Congressman, has unfortunately had great difficulty in getting his campaign off the ground. Hunter is a good candidate, a trustworthy statesman, a man of character, and a true American patriot. But his dismal showing in Iowa shows just how difficult it has been for the Congressman to garner the attention needed to mount a competitive national campaign.
Kansas Senator Sam Brownback is another man of character who will have great difficulty in mounting a competitive national campaign. His third place showing in Iowa, despite his neighboring state status, shows that the rest of the country will probably overlook his candidacy. We fail to see any of the state primaries coming through for Brownback with a victory.
This leaves the big five. Of those Ron Paul will have the biggest trouble winning a primary. It is not that he does not have a great deal of grassroots support. His supporters are active, vocal, and energized. Yet he has alienated a massive sector of the GOP base by his statements against the War in Iraq. We simply do not see Dr. Paul winning a primary, unless it happens to be one of the New England states.
Mitt Romney is another vulnerable candidate. He may well emerge from the primaries with a few victories, but one can rest assured that the vast American heartland will not support him, no matter what the Iowa straw poll shows. The fact is Romney spent a ton of his own money to buy a victory in Iowa. This will not work in places such as South Carolina, Florida, Texas, or Arizona.
In spite of the money Romney spends and the attention he receives in the media, his national poll numbers are dismal for someone who claims 'top-tier' status.
Mike Huckabee and Tom Tancredo are rising stars among the announced candidates. Both are beginning to gain the attention that they sorely lacked at the beginning of the campaign. Both are also beginning to experience rising poll numbers. The upward mobility of these two dark horses will be an interesting phenomenon to watch.
And this brings us to Rudy Giuliani, who still maintains front-runner status. Giuliani's support runs deep in many states around the country, and there is no doubt the candidate will win some primaries in states where Republicans have had difficulty in recent years.
The question is how long can Rudy maintain his status as front-runner after Fred Thompson's announcement in September.
There is absolutely no doubt that Thompson is the man to watch. He has attracted early support across the country as very few candidates ever dream of being able to do.
Can Thompson maintain and build upon this support once he jumps into the race?
The wild card in the GOP is Newt Gingrich, who still hints around from time to time that he may announce his candidacy in the Fall. While Gingrich will bring much energy and fresh ideas to the campaign, we worry about his high negatives, which rival that of Hillary Clinton.
Only one thing may tip Gingrich in the direction of running--should Fred Thompson falter after his entry into the race, Gingrich may decide that he is the one who can save the Party from an embarrassing defeat in '08.
With former candidate Jim Gilmore dropping out of the race earlier, the slate of announced GOP candidates has now been whittled down to eight. Of those eight, only five stand a real chance at gaining the Republican nomination, and even two of those are highly doubtful.
Among the announced candidates 'the big five' are Rudy Giuliani, Mitt Romney, Ron Paul, Mike Huckabee, and Tom Tancredo.
Although John McCain keeps campaigning and insists he will not drop out, it is difficult to imagine his candidacy going anywhere. A look at the landscape of the primaries will reveal that the candidate in all likelihood will win absolutely no states.
Duncan Hunter, the highly respected veteran California Congressman, has unfortunately had great difficulty in getting his campaign off the ground. Hunter is a good candidate, a trustworthy statesman, a man of character, and a true American patriot. But his dismal showing in Iowa shows just how difficult it has been for the Congressman to garner the attention needed to mount a competitive national campaign.
Kansas Senator Sam Brownback is another man of character who will have great difficulty in mounting a competitive national campaign. His third place showing in Iowa, despite his neighboring state status, shows that the rest of the country will probably overlook his candidacy. We fail to see any of the state primaries coming through for Brownback with a victory.
This leaves the big five. Of those Ron Paul will have the biggest trouble winning a primary. It is not that he does not have a great deal of grassroots support. His supporters are active, vocal, and energized. Yet he has alienated a massive sector of the GOP base by his statements against the War in Iraq. We simply do not see Dr. Paul winning a primary, unless it happens to be one of the New England states.
Mitt Romney is another vulnerable candidate. He may well emerge from the primaries with a few victories, but one can rest assured that the vast American heartland will not support him, no matter what the Iowa straw poll shows. The fact is Romney spent a ton of his own money to buy a victory in Iowa. This will not work in places such as South Carolina, Florida, Texas, or Arizona.
In spite of the money Romney spends and the attention he receives in the media, his national poll numbers are dismal for someone who claims 'top-tier' status.
Mike Huckabee and Tom Tancredo are rising stars among the announced candidates. Both are beginning to gain the attention that they sorely lacked at the beginning of the campaign. Both are also beginning to experience rising poll numbers. The upward mobility of these two dark horses will be an interesting phenomenon to watch.
And this brings us to Rudy Giuliani, who still maintains front-runner status. Giuliani's support runs deep in many states around the country, and there is no doubt the candidate will win some primaries in states where Republicans have had difficulty in recent years.
The question is how long can Rudy maintain his status as front-runner after Fred Thompson's announcement in September.
There is absolutely no doubt that Thompson is the man to watch. He has attracted early support across the country as very few candidates ever dream of being able to do.
Can Thompson maintain and build upon this support once he jumps into the race?
The wild card in the GOP is Newt Gingrich, who still hints around from time to time that he may announce his candidacy in the Fall. While Gingrich will bring much energy and fresh ideas to the campaign, we worry about his high negatives, which rival that of Hillary Clinton.
Only one thing may tip Gingrich in the direction of running--should Fred Thompson falter after his entry into the race, Gingrich may decide that he is the one who can save the Party from an embarrassing defeat in '08.
Saturday, May 05, 2007
New Poll Indicates Hillary In Trouble
Washington, DC (TLS). A new poll is making its rounds in Washington and beyond that shows Hillary Clinton in deep trouble. The poll also has some startling information for the Republican front-runners.
If the election were held today, both Barack Obama and John Edwards would beat each of the top three Republican candidates in head-to-head races. This shows that Giuliani, McCain, and Romney's support may be very tentative, even among Republicans.
However, when Hillary is matched with Rudy Giuliani in a head-to-head encounter, if the election were held today, Giuliani would beat Hillary in some areas that have become known as Democratic strongholds, such as New York, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania. Hillary would not win a single Southern state.
The poll suggests that at this particular point in time, if Hillary is the Democratic nominee, Giuliani is the one who can beat her. However, if either Obama or Edwards are the nominee, the Republicans had better have a strong candidate other than Giuliani, McCain, or Romney to step up to the plate.
No doubt this race is still wide open at this point, as it should be this early in the game.
But let's look at trends. Over the past several weeks, Democratic voters have tended to shift away from Hillary and toward Obama to a great degree, and toward Edwards to a somewhat lesser degree.
Republicans, on the other hand, are beginning to indicate that they actually prefer a candidate who is NOT in the top tier, while hanging onto Rudy as their preference should Hillary be the Democratic nominee.
LIBERTY SPHERE INSIDER'S TIP: It is still very early and things will certainly change. But at this point don't count out John Edwards as an emerging powerhouse on the Democratic side. Voters are still enamored with Obama's charisma, but that will fade as the campaign moves forward and citizens see just how much of a political lightweight he truly is. The picture on the Republican side is a bit fuzzy but beginning to focus slightly on one major variable--the Fred Thompson-Newt Gingrich factor. If one or both enter the race, it is an entirely new ball game.
If the election were held today, both Barack Obama and John Edwards would beat each of the top three Republican candidates in head-to-head races. This shows that Giuliani, McCain, and Romney's support may be very tentative, even among Republicans.
However, when Hillary is matched with Rudy Giuliani in a head-to-head encounter, if the election were held today, Giuliani would beat Hillary in some areas that have become known as Democratic strongholds, such as New York, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania. Hillary would not win a single Southern state.
The poll suggests that at this particular point in time, if Hillary is the Democratic nominee, Giuliani is the one who can beat her. However, if either Obama or Edwards are the nominee, the Republicans had better have a strong candidate other than Giuliani, McCain, or Romney to step up to the plate.
No doubt this race is still wide open at this point, as it should be this early in the game.
But let's look at trends. Over the past several weeks, Democratic voters have tended to shift away from Hillary and toward Obama to a great degree, and toward Edwards to a somewhat lesser degree.
Republicans, on the other hand, are beginning to indicate that they actually prefer a candidate who is NOT in the top tier, while hanging onto Rudy as their preference should Hillary be the Democratic nominee.
LIBERTY SPHERE INSIDER'S TIP: It is still very early and things will certainly change. But at this point don't count out John Edwards as an emerging powerhouse on the Democratic side. Voters are still enamored with Obama's charisma, but that will fade as the campaign moves forward and citizens see just how much of a political lightweight he truly is. The picture on the Republican side is a bit fuzzy but beginning to focus slightly on one major variable--the Fred Thompson-Newt Gingrich factor. If one or both enter the race, it is an entirely new ball game.
Saturday, April 07, 2007
The Gingrich-Kerry Climate Debate, April 10
Washington, DC (TLS). A real treat is in store of those living in the Beltway area on April 10, at 10 AM. Newt Gingrich and John Kerry will square off in a debate concerning climate change and the impact of humanity on the process.
This is an event you will not want to miss.
The debate is being sponsored by New York University’s John Brademas Center for the Study of Congress and will take place next Tuesday, April 10, at 10 a.m. in the Russell Senate Office Building.
I have never made any attempt to hide my disgust with John Kerry. However, any public event featuring Newt Gingrich is an opportunity to see one of the most astute political minds at work, not to mention his immense skills in public speaking, fielding questions, and handling himself in a debate.
Read the details of the event here:
http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/kerry-gingrich-announce-climate-showdown-2007-04-05.html
This is an event you will not want to miss.
The debate is being sponsored by New York University’s John Brademas Center for the Study of Congress and will take place next Tuesday, April 10, at 10 a.m. in the Russell Senate Office Building.
I have never made any attempt to hide my disgust with John Kerry. However, any public event featuring Newt Gingrich is an opportunity to see one of the most astute political minds at work, not to mention his immense skills in public speaking, fielding questions, and handling himself in a debate.
Read the details of the event here:
http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/kerry-gingrich-announce-climate-showdown-2007-04-05.html
Thursday, March 29, 2007
The Dobson Snub of Fred Thompson
Washington, DC (TLS). Evangelical Christian leader James Dobson recently stated that while Fred Thompson is definitely conservative and espouses views that Dobson's listeners support, there are concerns about 'whether or not he is a Christian.'
Former U.S. Senator and actor Fred Thompson has suggested in recent days that he would consider entering the race for the Republican Presidential nomination.
Thompson's announcement has enlivened disheartened conservatives who have lamented the lack of viable conservative candidates in the Republican field. In the two weeks or so since Thompson indicated he may run, there has been a 'draft Fred Thompson' movement afoot among Republicans, including some with far-reaching influence and deep pockets.
Dobson, however, expressed hesitation over the possibility.
No doubt Dobson's listeners value a Christian candidate. As the most widely influential evangelical Christian on the scene today, Dobson's radio program, 'Focus on the Family,' is carried by over 2000 radio stations and boasts an audience of over 40 million listeners, most of whom are very politically active and support candidates who espouse traditional values.
Dobson's presumption that Thompson is not a Christian seems a bit over the top, however.
A Thompson spokesman responded to Dobson's remarks by stating that Thompson is, indeed, a Christian, having been baptized into the Church of Christ. A Dobson spokesman clarified the evangelical leader's remarks by stating that Dobson was not suggesting that the group to which Thompson belonged was not Christian but that Thompson had never spoken openly about his faith.
Evangelical Christians believe it is vital that followers of Christ give verbal assent to their faith. However, historically this has never been viewed as a license to pass judgment on a person's faith or lack thereof. Those matters are usually left up to the individual and God.
It is no secret that Dobson prefers Newt Gingrich, who recently confessed to Dobson's audience that he had an adulterous affair while serving as Speaker of the House. However, Newt has some negative baggage. Gun Owners of America is rather cool toward a Gingrich candidacy due to the difficulty of getting the Speaker to place on the docket bills of vital interest to gun owners. In addition, outside of conservative Republican circles, Newt's negatives tend to be rather high.
This is not to say that Newt would be snubbed by Republicans if he threw his hat into the ring or that he would not make inroads into the general population. He is certainly intelligent and articulate enough to bring people on board with him.
Yet so far no conservative candidate has created the excitement and the 'buzz' that Thompson has managed to create by merely suggesting that he 'might' run. Columnist Mona Charen wrote today that there are numerous reasons that a Thompson candidacy may be the only viable hope for a Republican win in 2008, not the least of which is his appeal to independents.
The bottom line is that Dobson's analysis of Fred Thompson's faith may not be a very important factor, not even to Dobson's listeners. Evangelical Christian voters today are intelligent, informed, and well-read. Their level of sophistication is such that an opinion expressed by a beloved evangelical leader will be viewed as nothing more than just that--an opinion.
Conservative voters are well-aware of the nature of politics. They are not looking for sainthood but for someone who shares their values, their ideals, their world-view. Above all they want someone who respects their faith.
Absolutely nothing in Fred Thompson's history or political career even remotely suggests that his views will not resonate with the vast majority of conservative evangelical voters.
Former U.S. Senator and actor Fred Thompson has suggested in recent days that he would consider entering the race for the Republican Presidential nomination.
Thompson's announcement has enlivened disheartened conservatives who have lamented the lack of viable conservative candidates in the Republican field. In the two weeks or so since Thompson indicated he may run, there has been a 'draft Fred Thompson' movement afoot among Republicans, including some with far-reaching influence and deep pockets.
Dobson, however, expressed hesitation over the possibility.
No doubt Dobson's listeners value a Christian candidate. As the most widely influential evangelical Christian on the scene today, Dobson's radio program, 'Focus on the Family,' is carried by over 2000 radio stations and boasts an audience of over 40 million listeners, most of whom are very politically active and support candidates who espouse traditional values.
Dobson's presumption that Thompson is not a Christian seems a bit over the top, however.
A Thompson spokesman responded to Dobson's remarks by stating that Thompson is, indeed, a Christian, having been baptized into the Church of Christ. A Dobson spokesman clarified the evangelical leader's remarks by stating that Dobson was not suggesting that the group to which Thompson belonged was not Christian but that Thompson had never spoken openly about his faith.
Evangelical Christians believe it is vital that followers of Christ give verbal assent to their faith. However, historically this has never been viewed as a license to pass judgment on a person's faith or lack thereof. Those matters are usually left up to the individual and God.
It is no secret that Dobson prefers Newt Gingrich, who recently confessed to Dobson's audience that he had an adulterous affair while serving as Speaker of the House. However, Newt has some negative baggage. Gun Owners of America is rather cool toward a Gingrich candidacy due to the difficulty of getting the Speaker to place on the docket bills of vital interest to gun owners. In addition, outside of conservative Republican circles, Newt's negatives tend to be rather high.
This is not to say that Newt would be snubbed by Republicans if he threw his hat into the ring or that he would not make inroads into the general population. He is certainly intelligent and articulate enough to bring people on board with him.
Yet so far no conservative candidate has created the excitement and the 'buzz' that Thompson has managed to create by merely suggesting that he 'might' run. Columnist Mona Charen wrote today that there are numerous reasons that a Thompson candidacy may be the only viable hope for a Republican win in 2008, not the least of which is his appeal to independents.
The bottom line is that Dobson's analysis of Fred Thompson's faith may not be a very important factor, not even to Dobson's listeners. Evangelical Christian voters today are intelligent, informed, and well-read. Their level of sophistication is such that an opinion expressed by a beloved evangelical leader will be viewed as nothing more than just that--an opinion.
Conservative voters are well-aware of the nature of politics. They are not looking for sainthood but for someone who shares their values, their ideals, their world-view. Above all they want someone who respects their faith.
Absolutely nothing in Fred Thompson's history or political career even remotely suggests that his views will not resonate with the vast majority of conservative evangelical voters.
Friday, March 23, 2007
Newt's Got a Big Problem
Washington, DC (TLS). Newt Gingrich has emerged as one of the potential 'dark horse' candidates who could rise to the top of the pack at the last minute in the race toward the Republican Presidential nomination.
However, Newt's got a big problem.
Gun Owners of America (GOA) has published a complete informational rundown on the candidates in both Parties and how they stack up with regard to 2nd Amendment rights. According to Gun Owners of America, Newt often thwarted attempts to get gun rights bills placed on the docket when he was Speaker of the House, leading to less than admirable ratings by the GOA.
At one point, GOA states that Gingrich garnered no better than a grade of 'D' on gun rights.
What this means is that Gingrich is only one grade ahead of the dismal ratings of 'F' and 'F-' that GOA has given to candidates Giuliani and McCain. The GOA states that Romney has been all over the board so much on various issues, including gun rights, that it is difficult to tell what, exactly, the candidate truly believes about the 2nd Amendment.
By far the best candidates on gun rights are Duncan Hunter, Mike Huckabee, and Ron Paul, with Tom Tancredo moving up fast.
While Newt's stance on other issues of great interest to conservatives may, in the long run, overcome any weakness on gun issues, at this point it appears that he has a long way to go in convincing gun rights groups that he is our man.
On the other hand, none of the Democrats have anything that could be construed as an acceptable record on the 2nd Amendment, with the possible exception of Governor Bill Richardson. While the GOA has yet to rate Richardson on their grading scale, the rest of the pack among the Democrats rate an 'F' or worse...'F-' being the absolute worst (candidates Clinton, Obama, Biden, Dodd, and even Gore rate an 'F-').
Thus, a Gingrich candidacy would be much preferred over the likes of anything the Democrats have put forth.
Click here to get the scoop directly from the GOA website:
http://gunowners.org/pres08/
However, Newt's got a big problem.
Gun Owners of America (GOA) has published a complete informational rundown on the candidates in both Parties and how they stack up with regard to 2nd Amendment rights. According to Gun Owners of America, Newt often thwarted attempts to get gun rights bills placed on the docket when he was Speaker of the House, leading to less than admirable ratings by the GOA.
At one point, GOA states that Gingrich garnered no better than a grade of 'D' on gun rights.
What this means is that Gingrich is only one grade ahead of the dismal ratings of 'F' and 'F-' that GOA has given to candidates Giuliani and McCain. The GOA states that Romney has been all over the board so much on various issues, including gun rights, that it is difficult to tell what, exactly, the candidate truly believes about the 2nd Amendment.
By far the best candidates on gun rights are Duncan Hunter, Mike Huckabee, and Ron Paul, with Tom Tancredo moving up fast.
While Newt's stance on other issues of great interest to conservatives may, in the long run, overcome any weakness on gun issues, at this point it appears that he has a long way to go in convincing gun rights groups that he is our man.
On the other hand, none of the Democrats have anything that could be construed as an acceptable record on the 2nd Amendment, with the possible exception of Governor Bill Richardson. While the GOA has yet to rate Richardson on their grading scale, the rest of the pack among the Democrats rate an 'F' or worse...'F-' being the absolute worst (candidates Clinton, Obama, Biden, Dodd, and even Gore rate an 'F-').
Thus, a Gingrich candidacy would be much preferred over the likes of anything the Democrats have put forth.
Click here to get the scoop directly from the GOA website:
http://gunowners.org/pres08/
Monday, March 12, 2007
The Liberty Sphere Top Stories for Monday
GOOD MORNING!
Scroll down for these stories and commentary on The Liberty Sphere this Monday morning.
**Fred Thompson, well-known actor and former U.S. Senator may run for the Republican Presidential nomination. This will change the face of the entire race.
**Newt Gingrich confessed to James Dobson that he had an affair in the 1990s. Will this help or hurt?
HAVE A GREAT DAY, EVERYONE!
Scroll down for these stories and commentary on The Liberty Sphere this Monday morning.
**Fred Thompson, well-known actor and former U.S. Senator may run for the Republican Presidential nomination. This will change the face of the entire race.
**Newt Gingrich confessed to James Dobson that he had an affair in the 1990s. Will this help or hurt?
HAVE A GREAT DAY, EVERYONE!
Newt's Confession
Washington, DC (TLS). Former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich confessed to evangelical Christian leader James Dobson and his massive radio audience that he had an affair during the 1990s while he served in Congress. Gingrich stated that he had recognized his wrongdoing and had asked God to forgive him.
Newt is to be congratulated and affirmed for his honesty.
The reason why Newt's confession rings authentic and thus rises above that of most politicians is that in other cases such confessions come only after one is 'caught with their pants down.' Newt had nothing to gain and nothing to lose in making this public confession to a deed that has gone relatively unnoticed. It is not like someone in the media had caught the former Congressman in a compromising situation and was hounding him about the truth of the misdeeds. This confession came out of the blue, under no pressure from anyone to talk about it.
In addition, Newt's confession is further significant in that the affair took place during Bill Clinton's impeachment hearings--hearings of which Gingrich was a part. Being basically a deeply spiritual man at the core of his being, this fact more than likely haunted Newt for all these years. While castigating Bill Clinton's dalliances with Monica Lewinsky, he himself was engaged in an adulterous affair.
Thus, the confession was an exercise in the cleansing of the soul.
No doubt, most of James Dobson's listeners, and the Christian community in general, can be very forgiving when a wayward soul makes such a stark and honest confession. However, the problem is not with the evangelical Christian community but with hypocritical Democrats should Newt decide to seek the Republican nomination for President.
Democrats in Congress have already shown the populace time and again that they have no qualms at all about vilifying a Republican for doing what they defended a Democrat for doing. The Democrat mantra is, 'If we do it, it's ok, but if THEY do it, it's wrong.'
Look at how many Democrats sit in positions of leadership in Congress who have terrible legal and ethical stains on their records--Kennedy, Conyers, Reid, Leahy, Murtha, and about a dozen more. Yet they thought Scooter Libby should be in jail for 'outing' an operative who everyone in town already knew about and who was not even a covert operative to begin with.
Conyers on the other hand broke federal campaign laws.
Thus, in spite of the fact that the Democrats gave us Bill 'Cigars' Clinton, Gerry 'I Love Under-Age Boys' Studds, and the like, you can bet your bottom dollar that they will have a field-day with Newt's confession to an affair while he was presiding over impeachment hearings on Bill Clinton.
One can imagine all sorts of nightmarish, tasteless, and downright sleazy attack ads aimed at Newt. Christians forgive but Democrats need campaign fodder. No matter how vehemently they defended Bill Clinton and Gerry Studds, they will turn right around and attempt to make Newt into the Devil himself.
The Gingrich confession may well work to Newt's favor in the long-run. We shall see. But there are deep and treacherous waters here that will have to be navigated.
By the way, it is not totally coincidental that former Tennessee Senator and TV Star Fred Thompson announced Sunday he may seek the Republican nomination. Here is a man with solid conservative credentials, with instant name recognition, and with little excess baggage, who could well become the 'dark horse' candidate who rises to the top in a hurry.
Stay tuned. It's really getting interesting out there.
Newt is to be congratulated and affirmed for his honesty.
The reason why Newt's confession rings authentic and thus rises above that of most politicians is that in other cases such confessions come only after one is 'caught with their pants down.' Newt had nothing to gain and nothing to lose in making this public confession to a deed that has gone relatively unnoticed. It is not like someone in the media had caught the former Congressman in a compromising situation and was hounding him about the truth of the misdeeds. This confession came out of the blue, under no pressure from anyone to talk about it.
In addition, Newt's confession is further significant in that the affair took place during Bill Clinton's impeachment hearings--hearings of which Gingrich was a part. Being basically a deeply spiritual man at the core of his being, this fact more than likely haunted Newt for all these years. While castigating Bill Clinton's dalliances with Monica Lewinsky, he himself was engaged in an adulterous affair.
Thus, the confession was an exercise in the cleansing of the soul.
No doubt, most of James Dobson's listeners, and the Christian community in general, can be very forgiving when a wayward soul makes such a stark and honest confession. However, the problem is not with the evangelical Christian community but with hypocritical Democrats should Newt decide to seek the Republican nomination for President.
Democrats in Congress have already shown the populace time and again that they have no qualms at all about vilifying a Republican for doing what they defended a Democrat for doing. The Democrat mantra is, 'If we do it, it's ok, but if THEY do it, it's wrong.'
Look at how many Democrats sit in positions of leadership in Congress who have terrible legal and ethical stains on their records--Kennedy, Conyers, Reid, Leahy, Murtha, and about a dozen more. Yet they thought Scooter Libby should be in jail for 'outing' an operative who everyone in town already knew about and who was not even a covert operative to begin with.
Conyers on the other hand broke federal campaign laws.
Thus, in spite of the fact that the Democrats gave us Bill 'Cigars' Clinton, Gerry 'I Love Under-Age Boys' Studds, and the like, you can bet your bottom dollar that they will have a field-day with Newt's confession to an affair while he was presiding over impeachment hearings on Bill Clinton.
One can imagine all sorts of nightmarish, tasteless, and downright sleazy attack ads aimed at Newt. Christians forgive but Democrats need campaign fodder. No matter how vehemently they defended Bill Clinton and Gerry Studds, they will turn right around and attempt to make Newt into the Devil himself.
The Gingrich confession may well work to Newt's favor in the long-run. We shall see. But there are deep and treacherous waters here that will have to be navigated.
By the way, it is not totally coincidental that former Tennessee Senator and TV Star Fred Thompson announced Sunday he may seek the Republican nomination. Here is a man with solid conservative credentials, with instant name recognition, and with little excess baggage, who could well become the 'dark horse' candidate who rises to the top in a hurry.
Stay tuned. It's really getting interesting out there.
Thursday, March 08, 2007
The Newt Gingrich Plan
Washington, DC (TLS). Newt Gingrich announced a plan this week that may well be his first step toward seeking the Republican Presidential nomination. Stating that Presidential campaigns have become mindless exercises in 5-second sound bytes, Gingrich has proposed a series of 90-minute discussion forums to take place each week from September through the November election in 2008.
The participants in these discussion forums would be the two Presidential candidates representing the two major Parties, plus a moderator. This is the most reasonable proposal for Presidential campaigns that has been placed on the table in many, many years.
One of the reasons I believe that Newt has put this proposal on the table is that he plans to be the candidate for the Republicans. Very few candidates in either Party would be able to withstand such a rigorous regimen of public debates. Newt is one of the few that could not only withstand it but excel. This is his forte, his arena. Possessing the verbal and rhetorical skills that surpass 99% of politicians in either Party, Newt would drive home his points with a keen intelligence and command of the English language that would put his opponent to shame.
As we have stated before on The Liberty Sphere, we would not be opposed to a draft Newt movement, although at present our support is with Duncan Hunter. Newt has solid conservative credentials and easily grasps the nuances and intricacies of international politics.
Several questions must be answered by Newt, however. Where does he stand on enforcing the nation's immigration laws? Will he force a federal bureaucracy which at present is out of control to enforce the nation's laws against illegal aliens? Will he enforce the notion that aiding and abetting illegal aliens is a FELONY, as stated in the United States Code?
Where does he stand on free speech? He once stated that he would be in favor of limiting some of our freedom of speech in order to fight terrorism. This is highly problematic for The Liberty Sphere and millions of others who value human liberty.
How thoroughly would he take up the mantle of 2nd Amendment issues in the face of a renegade Congress that is intent on robbing citizens of the right to keep and bear arms?
Newt will need to clarify these issues before The Liberty Sphere would support his candidacy. But we think his idea about a series of weekly debates from September to November prior to the 2008 election is an excellent proposal.
The participants in these discussion forums would be the two Presidential candidates representing the two major Parties, plus a moderator. This is the most reasonable proposal for Presidential campaigns that has been placed on the table in many, many years.
One of the reasons I believe that Newt has put this proposal on the table is that he plans to be the candidate for the Republicans. Very few candidates in either Party would be able to withstand such a rigorous regimen of public debates. Newt is one of the few that could not only withstand it but excel. This is his forte, his arena. Possessing the verbal and rhetorical skills that surpass 99% of politicians in either Party, Newt would drive home his points with a keen intelligence and command of the English language that would put his opponent to shame.
As we have stated before on The Liberty Sphere, we would not be opposed to a draft Newt movement, although at present our support is with Duncan Hunter. Newt has solid conservative credentials and easily grasps the nuances and intricacies of international politics.
Several questions must be answered by Newt, however. Where does he stand on enforcing the nation's immigration laws? Will he force a federal bureaucracy which at present is out of control to enforce the nation's laws against illegal aliens? Will he enforce the notion that aiding and abetting illegal aliens is a FELONY, as stated in the United States Code?
Where does he stand on free speech? He once stated that he would be in favor of limiting some of our freedom of speech in order to fight terrorism. This is highly problematic for The Liberty Sphere and millions of others who value human liberty.
How thoroughly would he take up the mantle of 2nd Amendment issues in the face of a renegade Congress that is intent on robbing citizens of the right to keep and bear arms?
Newt will need to clarify these issues before The Liberty Sphere would support his candidacy. But we think his idea about a series of weekly debates from September to November prior to the 2008 election is an excellent proposal.
Monday, March 05, 2007
Giuliani is NOT 'One of Us'
Washington, DC (TLS). Former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani, candidate for the Republican Presidential nomination, has been courting conservatives, attempting to portray himself as 'one of us.'
The Liberty Sphere is convinced, however, that Giuliani is clearly NOT 'one of us.'
At the outset it should be stated that there are certain important factors in Giuliani's favor. He exhibits strong leadership in the midst of a national crisis--a vital characteristic for a U.S. President in an age of terrorism. He supports American capitalism, so much, in fact, that he views Hillary Clinton and her atheist billionaire queen-maker George Soros with much suspicion. Giuliani has been much-quoted in the media as regarding Hillary's philosophy and alliances as a dangerous threat to American liberty and to U.S. capitalism.
It doesn't hurt that Giuliani is on record opposing the notion of socialism or any form of collectivism.
Thus, if it came down to a choice between Giuliani and Hillary, or Giuliani and Obama, or anyone else running on the Democrat side, Giuliani would get my support hands-down. However, this does not mean that he is 'one of us' or that conservatives should not watch him very closely if he is the nominee. Some of Giuliani's positions on the issues are cause for alarm.
One, he has consistently supported government registration of gun owners. This makes him no different than his gun-grabbing counterparts on the Democrat side. The lame excuse that New York City was so violent that guns needed to come off the streets is simply not going to wash down South or throughout the sun-belt and mountain states. You do not punish law-abiding citizens for what criminals do.
Second, Giuliani is clearly a social liberal. People who possess a deep faith that teaches homosexual behavior is sinful will have a tough time supporting Giuliani, particularly in light of some of his activities and associations during the period after his divorce. The fact that he is pro-choice on abortion does nothing but seal his fate as a non-viable candidate for religious conservatives.
My fear is that if Giuliani is the Republican nominee, a significant portion of the Party base will simply stay home on election day, which is tantamount to handing the election to Hillary or Obama or Edwards.
Giuliani's problem is one that he shares with the top three Republican nominees. McCain has all but totally botched any tentative support he may have had among conservatives with his attacks on free speech and his stance on open borders. Romney has taken so many different positions on so many different issues that my fear is that Democrats will have a field day with their attack ads if he is the nominee. Religious conservatives in particular may believe in the concept of repentance and conversion, but they are leery of so-called 'death-bed' repentance--that phenomenon that exhibits itself in a person's suddenly 'seeing the light' just before death or having a sudden 'change of heart' in order to please someone or to gain some sort of pay-off.
Romney's sudden pro-life and pro-gun stance appear much too expedient for many conservatives to feel comfortable with him.
Unless Republicans can come up with someone further down in the ranks who is trustworthy, consistent, believable, genuine, and has a solid track-record of votes that prove their conservative beliefs, then I am afraid we will lose this election to a candidate that will create the worst nightmare this nation has ever seen. Giuliani may have a shot at beating Hillary and Obama, but don't count on McCain or Romney pulling that off.
Duncan Hunter, so far, is the man to beat, in our opinion. He is by far the best candidate we have in the pack.
The only other hope is for a draft Newt Gingrich movement. Despite some of Newt's negatives, he is articulate and intelligent enough to hold his own with the likes of Hillary or Obama in a debate. In fact, they are no match for the former Georgia Congressman.
The Liberty Sphere is convinced, however, that Giuliani is clearly NOT 'one of us.'
At the outset it should be stated that there are certain important factors in Giuliani's favor. He exhibits strong leadership in the midst of a national crisis--a vital characteristic for a U.S. President in an age of terrorism. He supports American capitalism, so much, in fact, that he views Hillary Clinton and her atheist billionaire queen-maker George Soros with much suspicion. Giuliani has been much-quoted in the media as regarding Hillary's philosophy and alliances as a dangerous threat to American liberty and to U.S. capitalism.
It doesn't hurt that Giuliani is on record opposing the notion of socialism or any form of collectivism.
Thus, if it came down to a choice between Giuliani and Hillary, or Giuliani and Obama, or anyone else running on the Democrat side, Giuliani would get my support hands-down. However, this does not mean that he is 'one of us' or that conservatives should not watch him very closely if he is the nominee. Some of Giuliani's positions on the issues are cause for alarm.
One, he has consistently supported government registration of gun owners. This makes him no different than his gun-grabbing counterparts on the Democrat side. The lame excuse that New York City was so violent that guns needed to come off the streets is simply not going to wash down South or throughout the sun-belt and mountain states. You do not punish law-abiding citizens for what criminals do.
Second, Giuliani is clearly a social liberal. People who possess a deep faith that teaches homosexual behavior is sinful will have a tough time supporting Giuliani, particularly in light of some of his activities and associations during the period after his divorce. The fact that he is pro-choice on abortion does nothing but seal his fate as a non-viable candidate for religious conservatives.
My fear is that if Giuliani is the Republican nominee, a significant portion of the Party base will simply stay home on election day, which is tantamount to handing the election to Hillary or Obama or Edwards.
Giuliani's problem is one that he shares with the top three Republican nominees. McCain has all but totally botched any tentative support he may have had among conservatives with his attacks on free speech and his stance on open borders. Romney has taken so many different positions on so many different issues that my fear is that Democrats will have a field day with their attack ads if he is the nominee. Religious conservatives in particular may believe in the concept of repentance and conversion, but they are leery of so-called 'death-bed' repentance--that phenomenon that exhibits itself in a person's suddenly 'seeing the light' just before death or having a sudden 'change of heart' in order to please someone or to gain some sort of pay-off.
Romney's sudden pro-life and pro-gun stance appear much too expedient for many conservatives to feel comfortable with him.
Unless Republicans can come up with someone further down in the ranks who is trustworthy, consistent, believable, genuine, and has a solid track-record of votes that prove their conservative beliefs, then I am afraid we will lose this election to a candidate that will create the worst nightmare this nation has ever seen. Giuliani may have a shot at beating Hillary and Obama, but don't count on McCain or Romney pulling that off.
Duncan Hunter, so far, is the man to beat, in our opinion. He is by far the best candidate we have in the pack.
The only other hope is for a draft Newt Gingrich movement. Despite some of Newt's negatives, he is articulate and intelligent enough to hold his own with the likes of Hillary or Obama in a debate. In fact, they are no match for the former Georgia Congressman.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)