Why Newt should not be the nominee

January 20, 2012
By

From a policy perspective, it’s simple: Newt would destroy the United States by admitting millions of “guest” workers, and amnestying millions of illegal aliens who are already here. Not even John “amnesty” McCain was brazen enough to support these policies when he was running for president.

But there’s a more insidious problem with Newt: if he wins the nomination, and especially if he becomes president, he could prove devastating to conservatism and the Republican party.

Newt is like crack cocaine. Crack gives you an immediate and extraordinary high. It can be surprising and effective, just like Newt was in 1994, and in flashes of brilliance during the presidential primary campaign.

But crack also brings stupefying lows. It can lay waste to your life. Newt is just one scandal or stupid statement away from imploding during the election.

And, if he were elected, Newt’s atrocious management skills would make a mess of everything, and alienate everyone around him. It’s no coincidence that so many people who served in the House with Newt are so vehemently against him.

President Newt would so rapidly alienate the electorate that Democrats might take back Congress in the mother of all mid-terms in 2014.

The idea of Newt Gingrich as president would be laughable under ordinary circumstances. The only reason he’s riding high this year is that he’s a very visible contrast to the steady, comfortable, but boring and discomfiting, sobriety of Mitt Romney.

It’s no coincidence that Newt was married a few times, and has a history of adultery. Similarly, it’s no coincidence that Romney has been married to the same woman all his adult life.

That’s our choice: The hare or the tortoise. Choose wisely, because the results could be catastrophic.

Me, I hope the tortoise wins.

40 Responses to Why Newt should not be the nominee

  1. MikeN on January 20, 2012 at 7:56 am

    Now ROMNEY is the tortoise? The frontrunner? People said Newt should drop out. His campaign team quit on him and joined Rick Perry. Newt was the one chugging away, willing to debate anyone, anytime.

    And Romney will be more likely to amnesty everyone. The Obama admin’s current policy is the Dream Act by executive order. They are giving out amnesty right now. You think Romney will change that? I don’t think Newt would either, but I think it’s a bit more likely. As for your overall amnesty, Congress will never pass it, so it doesn’t matter. What matters is what the President will do to enforce existing law. I trust Newt more on the issue than Romney from the Wall Street Journal wing of the party. I trust Perry even more. Wall Street Journal regularly issues calls to open the border with Mexico.

    If Newt were so gaffe prone, why hasn’t he done it so far? If Newt would so alienate the country, why was he able to get a majority in the House in 1994, when people didn’t think it was possible? Then he held that majority in 1996 and 1998. Would have been gains if Trent Lott hadn’t sat on those tax cuts Newt and Delay and Armey kept passing.

    The one who would be devastating to conservatives would be Romney who is from the business finance wing of the party and would be all about passing special favors for big businesses. Already Romney is calling for tax cuts below $250,000. Not exactly seeing a flat tax out of that. When Newt was in charge, they passed budget cuts, and plans to undo whole departments. They didn’t have a President willing to sign on. When Mitt was governor we got Romneycare, and he opposed an initiative to eliminate the state income tax, the one that drove turnout and got him elected anyway.

    You have a point that Newt is more likely to lose 60-40 or 55-45. But Romney is less likely to win. The tortoise won because the hare didn’t try hard to win. Obama will crush him, label him a Mormon and a racist. “Who let the dogs out…”

  2. anonymous un-RINO on January 20, 2012 at 8:04 am

    “From a policy perspective, it’s simple: Newt would destroy the United States by admitting millions of “guest” workers, and amnestying millions of illegal aliens who are already here.”

    .

    Same thing as flipflopping Willard wants, as McLiar’s 2008 oppo research book demonstrates. There is no difference between these candidates on this issue. And Willard left the door open wide for amnesty last night, if you listened close. This “go to the back of the line” nonsense is the new code words for amnesty, and Willard speaks them fluently.

    .

    .

    “But there’s a more insidious problem with Newt: if he wins the nomination, and especially if he becomes president, he could prove devastating to conservatism…”

    .

    You mean, “devastating” like Willard’s proven support for such “conservatism” as Bailouts, Porkulus, big government growth, wealth redistribution through the tax code, ObomneyCare, government paid abortion, global warmingism, money printing, corporate crony capitalism, gun grabbing, unfettered immigration, IMF Euro bailouts, and so much more?

    You worried Newt might be as bad as Willard on all that stuff? He’d have to be pretty bad, wouldn’t he?

    And why is a RINO like you daring to speak for what’s good/bad for we conservatives, Poli? You’re a pure form RINO. You’re Mike Castle.

    .

    .

    “Newt is just one scandal or stupid statement away from imploding during the election.”

    .

    You mean kinda like how your boy Willard is melting down right now?

    .

    .

    “And, if he were elected, Newt’s atrocious management skills would make a mess of everything…”

    .

    You mean, he’d make a mess like how he helped blunt HillaryCare, forced Clinton to succumb to budgetary discipline, forced Clinton to sign welfare reform, and the other actions that represent some of the few expressions of conservative federal governance these past 20 years?

    I guess none of that compares to Willard’s stalwart “conservative” record of ObomneyCare and other Taxachusetts progressivism, eh?

    .

    .

    “President Newt would so rapidly alienate the electorate that Democrats might take back Congress in the mother of all mid-terms in 2014.”

    .

    Possible, but not likely. I’d predict the Congress will be in conflict with Newt, yes. There’ll be no lovefest like you Bushbot RINOs cheerleaded for 10 years ago, with that scumbag Delay hammering and pounding through big government expansions. There’ll be conflict… and may it be so, inshallah. Of course, Willard will seek out his leftist soulmates, and “get along”, just like the good leftist he is. And we’ll go bankrupt quicker.

    Gingrich knows Congress, make no mistake. He will not be led around by the nose by them, as Willard will, and by the wrong people in Congress, Pelosi included.

    .

    .

    “The idea of Newt Gingrich as president would be laughable under ordinary circumstances. The only reason he’s riding high this year is that he’s a very visible contrast to the steady, comfortable, but boring and discomfiting, sobriety of Mitt Romney.”

    .

    And the only reason this lying crapweasel WIllard is riding high this year is his tens of millions of dollars spent to buy the office, for the last 6 years. And we still hate the schmuck. Without his own cash, he’d be a nobody, and couldn’t get elected dogcatcher.

    .

    .

    “It’s no coincidence that Newt was married a few times, and has a history of adultery. Similarly, it’s no coincidence that Romney has been married to the same woman all his adult life.”

    And it’s no coincidence that Willard is a lying progressive crapweasel, who’s pretending to be married to “conservatism”. We conservatives are like Newt’s ex wife, we reject sham marriages like the one Willard thinks we’re in.

    Willard cannot win this election. That’s the bottom line. The Left is praying that they get to run against this crapweasel.

  3. Herschel Smith on January 20, 2012 at 8:20 am

    There is no difference on the issue of immigration between the candidates. They all suck, to the very last man.

    Mickey Kaus predicts a Romney flip-flop on immigration (concerning the currently slick wording coming out of his mouth).

    http://dailycaller.com/2012/01/15/will-mitt-flip-a-third-time/

    Also, I thought I would point out again that Romney is a gun-grabbing elitist.

    http://www.captainsjournal.com/2011/12/18/mitt-romney-on-gun-control/

    We’re going to have to rely on the Congress to push back against 12 million illegals, not the president. Again Poli, they all suck the big one.

  4. Jim,MtnViewCA,USA on January 20, 2012 at 8:41 am

    I really like this post. It accurately lists the dangers of a Newt candidacy.
    People like Newt because he is willing to fight, unlike so many Repubs. A recent blog post called him Ulysses S Gingrich and gave the famous Lincoln quote on being told that General Grant was a drunkard ““Tell me what brand of whiskey that Grant drinks. I would like to send a barrel of it to my other generals.”
    Also, people like Newt because he has the right enemies. The media hates him and attacks him in both fair and unfair ways.
    But Newt has huge flaws.
    Yeah, great post!

  5. Alternatively... on January 20, 2012 at 8:46 am

    Newt…willing to fight

    Or, he is just in love with himself. Give it some thought, you will arrive at that conclusion too.

  6. Festus on January 20, 2012 at 9:01 am

    Newt’s ego is so huge he makes Obama look humble.

  7. Mark on January 20, 2012 at 9:19 am

    Newt and Cain are narcissists, Obama and Romney are just highly ambitious. There is a difference.

  8. It's Mitt! on January 20, 2012 at 9:23 am

    Newt is like crack – so funny Poli! I hope Romney gets it, but I watched Newt shred John King three times last night. It was so damn funny!

  9. jan on January 20, 2012 at 9:35 am

    Well written commentary, Poli. It accurately points out the potholes ahead with a Gingrich presidency. The comparison to crack was also a good visual, because Newt is now serving as a ‘drug’ of choice for some conservatives who vicariously are getting a ‘high’ out of Newt’s confrontation with the despised media. But, should he get the prize of POTUS, afterwards this country will suffer from the painful withdrawals of their choice.

  10. The Exposer on January 20, 2012 at 9:39 am

    Newt is terrible, until you consider how execrable Slick Willard is.

  11. Evan3457 on January 20, 2012 at 9:53 am

    Newt is no great bargain, but he’s preferable to Romney.
    Unlike Romney, he has some actual conservative accomplishments on his resume. Not enough, but he does have some. Not only that, but he also knows how to fight back against the left’s bullspit.

  12. L. on January 20, 2012 at 9:54 am

    Newt’s confrontation with the despised media.

    Newt kept his name on the marquee by working for Fox News, which is run by the GOP operative, Roger Ailes. The media is only despised when it isn’t playing the GOP message.

    Nobody loves to embrace persecution better than a conservative. It’s in their genes.

  13. Gerry Owen on January 20, 2012 at 10:08 am

    Newt is a Global Warmist. Newt supported a national Individual mandate. Newt trashed the Ryan Plan as “Right Wing Social Engineering”.
    Why is he considered a “staunch Conservative”?

    Newt has a plethora of ethical charges, martial issues, and boneheaded statements to wade through, plus has an ego almost as big as Obama’s that he keeps tripping over-

    Why is he considered electable?

  14. invalid10 on January 20, 2012 at 10:49 am

    Newt needs to defeat Romney because Romney is unacceptable. Of course Newt is too, but right now Romney is the real danger since he could wrap this thing up early.

    Go Newt! (for now)

  15. Festus on January 20, 2012 at 11:08 am

    Romney will be the nominee. He will win Florida. He will dominate in the western and sw states(except probably Ok and Texas). He will dominate in the Great lakes and the midwest region. He will dominate the NE and Mid Atlantic too.

  16. jan on January 20, 2012 at 11:24 am

    Gary,

    There was only one wrong comment in your post. Newt’s ego is much larger than Obama’s. Just look at him smirking and agreeing with Santorum’s “grandiosity” comment. Now he is a mere ‘lobbyist.’ Should he become President, be will demand a crown!

  17. unclefred on January 20, 2012 at 11:26 am

    None of the candidates are solid on amnesty. Not even Romney who talks a better game, but I utterly distrust in this regard as president. The issue of “in country” illegal immigrants will have to be fought out in the legislature, that is where we’ll either win it or lose it. However any of the candidates, other than Ron Paul, will close the border. Our problem is not a new incoming flood, but to rid ourselves of those already here.

    Newt’s atrocious management skills are what built a conservative foundation in the house and ultimately put the Republicans in majority in the legislature for the first time in 40 years. What task has your boy Mitt undertaken of equal duration, difficulty, and magnitude?

    I’ll take the risk of alienating the electorate in 2016, if we can save the country in 2013.

    Poli – If Newt wins, you can be pretty certain that the house and Senate will consolidate their majorities in 2014. The notion that the democrats will retake the house in 2014 is foolish.

    I think that you would be well served to actually look at the reality of Newt’s time in the house, not the media sound bites and the talking points presented by the pundits.

    If Newt wins, I expect that he will be a “plain speaking” president to all the people.

  18. MikeN on January 20, 2012 at 11:32 am

    Romney has a record in support of gun control. He used his executive power as Governor to issue gay marriage licenses. Did he do anything like that on gun control? Issue pardons for people violating strict gun control laws?
    Romney on gay marriage has taken both sides. Put up a ballot proposition not immediately but for 2008 when it line up with the presidential primary. Plus he had marriage license forms changed on executive authority to read Partner A and Partner B. On abortion he signed on to Planned Parenthood’s checklist. On taxes he opposed the ballot initiative to repeal the state income tax. Raised fees substantially, but did prevent an increase in the state tax rate. Also, has no plans for big tax cuts other than a cut in the capital gains tax for incomes below $250,000. Meaning you get to invest in companies that people like Romney run but you don’t get to run your own.

    But hey he is very effective in attacking Obama. That might be enough, but Cain got to the top because he was willing to show leadership.

  19. MikeN on January 20, 2012 at 12:11 pm

    Newt would be a bad president who is a disaster for conservatives and Republicans? Fine with me. At least he would be president and would repeal Obamacare. I’m not convinced Romney would get that done. Romney’s statement is that he would give every state a waiver. That’s not repeal.

    So what if Democrats take over again. They will eventually anyway. The key is what happens when you have control. With a Democratic president, Newt got welfare reform, a repeal of the nationwide 55mph speed limit, and a balanced budget. Maybe he could get a balanced budget again, but he would definitely get Obamacare repealed.

  20. Assinine statement of the day (so far) on January 20, 2012 at 12:36 pm

    “The issue of “in country” illegal immigrants will have to be fought out in the legislature, that is where we’ll either win it or lose it. However any of the candidates, other than Ron Paul, will close the border.”

    LMAO!! What are u smokin’? can i have some?

  21. MikeN on January 20, 2012 at 1:56 pm

    Noone is going to close the border except maybe Paul. Do you even know what that term means?

  22. Festus on January 20, 2012 at 4:19 pm

    If Newt is the nominee(which he won’t be)will mean the GOp probably loses the house and fails to gain enough in the senate. He is a true disaster.

  23. basokla on January 20, 2012 at 11:47 pm

    Cocaine is a helluva drug.

    Just say “No”.

  24. JoeSmoe5277 on January 21, 2012 at 6:47 am

    Newt has ZERO chance of winning a general election in this country. You think a significant number of women in this country will vote for Newt after the MSM broadcasts his ex wife 24×7? You think any liberals will vote for Newt? Labor unions? African Americans? The ONLY group voting for Newt in any significant numbers will be white male conservatives, and there is simply not enough of them in a general election. If Newt wins the nomination, it will be a disaster for the Republican party in what should have been an easy election cycle.

  25. anonymous un-RINO on January 21, 2012 at 8:08 am

    Most of those groups you mention will not be voting for Willard either, especially after the Axlerod smear machine gets through with him. Willard’s helping Axe right now, with the income tax evasion thing.

    And yes, at least 40-45% of white women will vote for Gingrich. There will always be a gender gap between the 2 parties, and Obambi will get blown away among white men, no matter who’s the R candidate. The gender gap works both ways.

    Yes, I expect some if not many labor union members to vote for Gingrich. He’s more of a Reagan Democrat attraction than Willard, who those people will flee from. Gingrich has a chance to dig into the Midwest electoral vote count… while Willard is a stuttering Harvard one percenter… those people will shirk him like the plague.

    Willard isn’t the Independent attractor the RINOs are fantasizing. It hasn’t shown up in Iowa and New Hampshire, and I don’t expect it to show up in South Carolina today. He’s a lying crapweasel, and we conservatives aren’t the only ones to have noticed that. Heck, the RINOs are the only ones who are blind to it, at this point.

  26. Valerie on January 21, 2012 at 12:18 pm

    “From a policy perspective, it’s simple: Newt would destroy the United States by admitting millions of “guest” workers, and amnestying millions of illegal aliens who are already here. Not even John “amnesty” McCain was brazen enough to support these policies when he was running for president.”

    Garbage. A guest worker program is not amnesty. It is the piece of a rational immigration policy that was left out of our law by Ted Kennedy during the last go-round, at the behest of his beloved unions.

    We’ve had a guest worker program before, when we had illegal immigration problems, and it worked.

    A guest worker program allows people who want to come here only to work to do so. It does not need to lead to citizenship. It would make it easier for people to maintain their family ties, and to return home. The net result over time would be that we would export people who had been educated about us and about our system back to those rotten governments that drove them out with their economic nonsense. We would be exporting what the folks back home would call “Americans” — people who are vigorous and who have a lowered tolerance for bribery.

    Imagine sending Mr. Chavez 20,000 men in their 40s and 50s.

  27. [...] – Why Newt should not be the nominee submitted by Rhymes with [...]

  28. [...] – Why Newt should not be the nominee submitted by Rhymes with [...]

  29. [...] – Why Newt should not be the nominee submitted by Rhymes with [...]

  30. Dinner is Almost Served | on January 25, 2012 at 5:57 pm

    [...] Polipundit – Why Newt should not be the nominee submitted byRhymes with Right [...]

  31. Is it Howdy Doody Time? | Sago on January 25, 2012 at 7:13 pm

    [...] – Why Newt should not be the nominee submitted by Rhymes with [...]

  32. [...] Polipundit – Why Newt should not be the nominee submitted byRhymes with Right [...]

  33. [...] – Why Newt should not be the nominee submitted by Rhymes with [...]

  34. [...] – Why Newt should not be the nominee submitted by Rhymes with [...]

  35. WoW!! | therightplanet.com on January 27, 2012 at 1:08 am

    [...] place *t* with 1/3 vote -Polipundit –Why Newt should not be the nominee submitted by Rhymes With [...]

  36. [...] place *t* with 1/3 vote – Polipundit – Why Newt should not be the nominee submitted by Rhymes With [...]

  37. [...] place *t* with 1/3 opinion -Polipundit –Why Newt should not be a hopeful submitted byRhymes With [...]

  38. [...] place *t* with 1/3 vote -Polipundit –Why Newt should not be the nominee submitted by Rhymes With [...]

  39. Thanks Council! | on January 29, 2012 at 8:05 pm

    [...] place *t* with 1/3 vote -Polipundit –Why Newt should not be the nominee submitted by Rhymes With [...]

  40. [...] place *t* with 1/3 vote -Polipundit –Why Newt should not be the nominee submitted by Rhymes With [...]

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *