| About Us | Contact | Donate | User Blogs | Login |
Newt Gingrich for RNC Chair
I am thrilled to see the ideas that Patrick Ruffini has been putting forward on fixing the party and the "Rebuild the Party" effort:
http://www.rebuildtheparty.com/
My own thoughts are here:
http://travismonitor.blogspot.com/2008/11/no-place-to-go-but-up-strategy...
My point #1 is "Servant-leadership"
It starts with leadership. We need local leadership and elected officials that re-engage and re-energize the grassroots. These need to be servant-leaders that show the way by encouraging broad participation. The model is a ‘big tent’, but it is based on core principles as the tent poles that brings activists in and energizes them. We need to re-connect our own leaders with our own base, and need to develop new leaders out of grassroots by getting broader activist participation.
Without a leader who 'gets it' our efforts to rebuilt the party will be valiant but futile.
To that end, I think we need to draft Newt Gingrich to be RNC Chair:
1. He embraces the use of new technology
2. He shows he 'gets it' when it comes to leveraging grassroots networked movements, as shown by his American Solutions effort.
3. He is the most articulate spokesman we have and is high-profile enough to be able to represent the face of the Republican Party and carry some weight. He is a recognizable figure to unify the GOP that has no natural leader at this time. He can go toe-to-toe on Sunday talk shows, can and is already a draw for audiences.
4. Being an outsider of the past 8 years and a critic of Bush administration, he is not tainted by administration's failures and subsequent unpopularity. He has critiqued the execution of the Iraq war, opposed the bailout, and been critical of administration on spending and immigration. In short, he stands with the people on issues that the Bush WH lost popular support over.
5. He has never wavered from solid conservative principles, taking popular and correct stands, on drilling, on the bailout, on spending, on fixing Iraq, on immigration. He has credibility with the Republican base.
6. He engineered the 1994 victory, and 2010, in our best-case scenario, could and should be a similar repeat. Who better to win in this situation than to bring out the man who won this type of battle before.
Most critics of Gingrich will say "oh, we need a new face" but in fact, Gingrich, like Churchill, has had his 'wilderness' years. MOST CONSERVATIVES WANT THE OLD TIME REAGAN-GINGRICH RELIGION. They want us to return to the principles that won Reagan the white house and the GOP the Congress. I cannot disagree. When I think of the GOP core principles, I come back to the Reagan formula as the principles to stand on/
Gingrich knows that - BUT ALSO HAS SPENT HIS LIFETIME TALKING ABOUT THE FUTURE. It is a rare and valuable combination that we need at this time. If the GOP stays as stuck-in-the-muds, we lose; if we shed our principles to chase futuristic butterflies, we lose too. gingrich is unafraid to embrace the future while adhering to core conservative political principles.
We need new conservative leadership in the GOP and we need it NOW - in the RNC! Newt Gingrich is our man.
Draft Newt Gingrich to lead the RNC.
UPDATE:
Newt Gingrich has let the word out that he is willing to take the job. Digial Journal had a piece, posted on Redstate and Free Republic:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2127267/posts
High level of support for it in Freeperville and Redstate as there is here, 9-to-1 in favor ( antis were annoyed by his cough ad with Pelosi).
- Freedoms Truth's blog
- Login or register to post comments


Comments
Amen Brother!
I even blogged aboot this myself:
http://johnbrodigan.com/2008/10/31/newt-gingrich-for-rnc-chair/
True
Very true - I couldn't agree more. Gingrich has the stuff. Him, and any of the guys at "Freedom Works" are great people to look toward .. Dick Armey, Jeff Flake - guys like that.
I like this plan though, and I think moving back toward that sort of a Republican Party will help to dispell a lot of the misdoings of the more neoconservative aspect that took over during the Bush Administration. We need a leader with principles, not someone who will allow people to come in and reshape his or her values.
I agree that as it stands, Newt is our best prospect.
Does anyone know what his thoughts on the matter are? Is a call for his return a mainstream enough discussion within conservative circles for him to have heard about it? This is a good idea and something we should run with IMO.
Poll on Newt for RNC Chair
Thnking along the same lines, I put up a poll earlier. Newt has all the qualifications and a track record that no one in the RNC can match. But does he want the job?
I Believe Newt Will Take The Job
I like the Poll, it shows 100 % for Newt. I believe he will do it. Just ask him
I Like Newt
I could also see Michael Steele doing the job. Outside of them, Chip Saltsman would make a good candidate, but I think at that point we're getting into 2nd tier.
Not bad ...
Michael Steele is a great guy. I've got a good friend who worked for him, and had the pleasure of meeting him at Harvard - great energy, good personality, etc. I wouldn't be opposed to him in theory, but I still think Newt is a better bet in terms of restoring the whole "Republican Revolution" sentiment.
Newt...
Problem for Newt: correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think the RNC chair can run for the presidency. Newt may have his eyes on the higher prize, if Robert Novak is correct,
Newt's chance is NOW
If Newt has such ambition to be President, he can lead the RNC for the next 2 years, then turn over the reins to someone else to prepare for that race.
Jumping into the presidential race as a 12-year-private citizen is a big leap. Newt needs a real leadership position. without it, he'll not be a player. RNC Chair and being "Mr Republican" for 2 years could be it.
As I said - IT STARTS WITH SERVANT-LEADERSHIP. If Newt will put Presidential ambition above leading us NOW, when we need him, then in fact, he doesnt deserve the nomination.
(Parenthetically, though, I think Newt is our age's Robert Taft - he embodies the party in many ways but will never be the nominee precisely because such embodiment stirs up a partisan divisive reaction that makes him less electable.)
Who wouldn't want "NEWT" for our party in any capacity!!!
I wish that Newt would get engaged with us to fight back in any capacity. Too bad we couldn't use Karl Rove....he got it done before
RNC Chair seems good for Newt
Newt is a conservative intellectual best suited for this role because he seems to have a clear vision of where the Republican party should stand on various issues. It's very analogous to Dean as the DNC chair.
He may have presidential aspirations, though. I was looking at a lot of the various 2012 GOP options (Romney, Huckabee, Palin, Jindal) and none of them look viable for a general election if Obama governs competently. If that's the case, Newt would probably be the best candidate.
Viable
I didn't think Obama was a viable general election candidate after the Wright thing broke out and judging by the coalition that he depended on during the primaries. It's too early to determine how viable a candidate is at this moment, though all four of the candidates you mention have flaws that are correctible in the next four years.
viable
Being a hardline pro-life candidate is something that I would consider to be a general election flaw. It would be a difficult task for all but Romney to convince voters that they would not tack the SC hard right if given the opportunity.
Huckabee's (and presumably Palin's) belief in biblical inerrancy would also be an obstacle for a large percentage of the electorate that is weary of Bible-based politics.
I honestly doubted the impact of Wright on Obama precisely because it was based on the words of Wright, not Obama himself. The extent of Obama's participation in the controversy was "attending church for 20 years." That makes it a hard sell for a lot of voters, especially after the Muslim rumors.
Experience was always Obama's big weakness.
But Bush was pretty hardline on abortion
or at least good enough to fake the fact that he wasn't. I agree that the stances of Palin and Jindal on abortion after rape would be red meat for dems but I suspect they'll be polished enough (hopefully) in 2012 to focus on Obama's abortion radicalism on the subject. The feminists are going to push him to move on this free choice stuff, which the majority of Americans wouldn't support. Bush was skilled enough to put the focus on his opponent's radicalism; perhaps Palin and Jindal could get schooled in that fashion.
People just love to hate Mitt though; the last Rasmussen poll done of his favorable/unfavorables during the summer was 40/48, months after he dropped out of the race. People just hate rich guys I suppose.
The biggest loser in all of this election stuff may be Hillary Clinton. The exit polls on Tuesday had her beating Mccain 52-41.
Who do liberals and dems hate more?
Newt or Palin? My top two choices for the chairman position are Newt and Steele. I think the chairman should also have some knowledge about where he or she wants to take the party electorally. After all, Dean ran on a 50-state strategy platform that catapulted him into the DNC chairman position. Newt's experiences stem from an electoral map 12 years ago so Steele's experience may be more recent with electoral politics. It's more than an ideas position.
hate?
I don't think Dems/Liberals hate Sarah Palin. Right or wrong, she is considered an object of ridicule and I can assure you that a lot of Dems would love to see her win the nomination in 2012 under the notion that it would guarantee a Dem victory. I don't think Palin has done any harm to Dems, so I can't imagine her being the object of hate, per se.
Newt, on the other hand, engineered the 1994 takeover and pushed to impeach Clinton over a sex scandal. Ironically, we've learned, while he was engaging in an extramarital affair of his own. Given all of that, I'd say more Dems hate Newt.
Of course, none of that has anything to do with Newt's qualifications to chair the RNC. Dean was an object of ridicule among Republicans who drooled at the thought of him driving the Dems over the cliff as the DNC chairman. Look how that turned out.
Newt just seems like a natural fit for the RNC chair.
Good points
Though I suspect a lot of those 18-29 year-olds that voted for Obama don't remember Newt's tenure in the 90s. That's why they went overwhelmingly for Obama in the primaries as they didn't really remember Hillary's work with the left in the 90s. I find the Dean/Palin analogy fascinating though her "rock star" appeal probably will allow her to remain a strong favorite for the republican nomination (whether she could seriously challenge Obama is another story and will take four years of work on her part), whereas Dean was done as a candidate in the future the moment he screamed.
I just used the word "hate" because of her 81% unfavorables among dems according to Rasmussen; I cannot imagine someone else but Newt or possibly Mitt having a higher unfavorable among dems. They're pissed off about the stuff she said about Ayers, socialism, Wright, community organizers, and patriotism during the campaign, so I sense that there is not just ridicule but disdain for her among liberals.
oh, good point
I am sure that many Dems are still angry at Palin for the terrorist/unAmerican rhetoric she used late in the campaign. However, that is all transient because Obama ultimately won the election so those feelings are likely fading for most. Now, if McCain had pulled out a narrow electoral victory, you would be seeing some real hate.
There really is no analogy between Dean and Palin that I can see on this topic. Unlike Dean, Palin is very new to the party and inexperienced, and is in no way suited for something that requires long-term strategic planning like the RNC chair. That would be disastrous for the GOP, in my opinion.
I wasn't using the analogy for the purposes
of this topic; I just found the analogy to be somewhat accurate in the perception of the other side. We would have loved to face Dean as a general election candidate just as they, at this moment, would love to see Palin. I'm a big Palin fan but I concede that she has a lot to work on in four years to make herself a credible challenge against Obama (though I don't think the nomination would be as difficult for her given the grassroots love, she'd be more Obama than Hillary). Dean was able to correct impressions of him through the 2006 victories, which surprised all of us. Palin will probably need an analogous accomplishment on her record to change the perception.
thanks for the clarification
Yes, Dean certainly rehabilitated his image among a lot of people with the 2006 Dem landslide. Still, he was not posturing for a presidential run so I'm not sure the analogy holds.
So how would Palin rehabilitate her image so that she could be viable in a general election?
For starters, she needs a change of scenery. If she runs in 2012 as the "governor of Alaska", then she'll be perceived as the same old Sarah. You can see the geography skits on SNL already.
If I were Palin's political advisor, I would hope and pray that Stevens wins the AK-Sen election. Then the GOP should strongarm Stevens to resign, opening up the door for Sarah to retire as governor and run for Stevens' seat in the special election.
With her homestate popularity and the desire of Alaskans to jab the eyes the lower 48, she would win handily and head to the Senate. That would give her 4 years to not only look presidential, but to get her name attached to legislative bills and gain some political gravitas.
Look at what the Senatorial run did for Hillary. She went from "getting the job because her husband was the president" to the early front-runner for the 2008 nomination.
I personally shudder at the thought of a Palin presidency, but that is probably her surest path to the office.
I agree
It appears that Stevens will win, though Nate Silver has a different thought. The insiders, according to First Read, from both sides seem to agree that Stevens will win. Stevens technically hasn't been convicted and will not be sentenced for eighteen months as his case progresses through the appeals process. It would be up to the Senate to get him to resign with the threat of resignation.
It appears that the commentariat from the right believes she's better off staying in Alaska where she could have as her signature achievement that gas pipeline. That's part of her appeal I suppose to some, her being from distant lands in Alaska. But for a national audience, rather than a primary audience, being a Senator with actual legislation would help her more with image rehabilitation (hell, she would probably achieve more in two years than Obama did in his tenure as a Senator). The media is so DC focused now that I think Senators are automatically favorites from now on to become president; Thune may be sitting prettier.
Better she stays a Governor
It's better training to be President than Senator.
We will learn this lesson to our regret as Obama flubs up in multiple "international tests" in his early years. Just watch. It will happen. Biden promised it. :-)
Besides, a conservative Senator in the Republican minority party will have this many landmark legislation bills passed and signed by Obama in the next 3 years: 0.
ok
I think the conventional wisdom was that Senators couldn't get elected, not that they would not serve well.
If you look at the last few governors-to-presidents, you get a mixed bag on performance:
W - bad
Clinton - good
Bush Sr - good
Reagan - good
Carter - bad
If you look at Senators, you get the same
Nixon - mixed
LBJ - good
JFK - mixed
Overall, I'd say it was a wash as to which turns out better. But mostly, I think the sample size is far too small to reach a conclusion.
Clinton and LBJ - NOT good presidents!
Clinton "good"? LOL, he saddled us with the worst SCOTUS appointee ever (except for Souter) - Ruth Bader Ginsburg. And a lot more besides. What made Clinton tolerable was a Republican Congress that kept him from doing more damage.
LBJ - SECOND WORST PRESIDENT IN MY LIFETIME!
How you can call him 'good' is a mark that you are not coming from a conservative perspective.
GWB should be rated above Clinton, based on SCOTUS appointments alone and other good things besides.
Thinking LBJ and Clinton were 'good' - yikes, a troll/moby signal.
sheesh
I was rating presidents on their overall success, not in their ability to select the SC justices you personally wanted. Administrations are not judged solely on their ability to overturn Roe v. Wade.
Anyone who still thinks that GWB was a more successful president than Clinton is simply not being objective. How many Republican candidates wanted to be seen on camera with GWB during this past campaign season? McCain was beaten by Obama precisely because he was portrayed as being another "George Bush". Is that a measure of success? The blind worship of GWB, even when he clearly strayed from the party's principles, is precisely by the GOP is in its current mess.
And is complaining about "moby" the standard practice when you can't address a point on its merits?
Yikes.. that's a freeper signal.
LBJ was a terrible president
LBJ was such a disaster that he couldnt even run again in 1968, due to multiple failures at home and abroad.
LBJ was a bad president both in terms of his failed 60s liberal agenda, his long-term destruction to the family and the econoy with welfare system, and his failures in vietnam, which outweigh the mistakes in Iraq by a factor of about 100 to 1. LBJ was a callous vicious thug of a politician who cheated his way to senate victory in 1948 and who illegally abused the FBI in 1964 to wiretap the Goldwater campaign HQ, ie, his behavior was worse that watergate, but he got away with it.
It is tiresome to give bad Democrat presidents a pass while rating our recent GWB on some standard of perfection that no president meets.
Sheesh back at ya.
And Clinton managed to be less destructive thanks to the Gingrich Congress holding him in check, but GWB managed not to get impeached in 8 years, so he has that on Clinton. Any standard of good/bad that ignore the constitutional impact of SCOTUS appointees (and it goes way beyond Roe) misses a significant factor.
SCOTUS picks are not representative
SCOTUS picks are polarized on ideological lines. What conservatives think are terrible picks are considered good picks by liberals, and vice versa. You cannot objectively judge a presidency by his SCOTUS picks, in general.
LBJ's behavior regarding the Vietnam War (Gulf of Tonkin) was no worse than Bush's trumping up of weak intelligence to invade Iraq. The difference is that LBJ had the decency to step down and not run for re-election.
With regards to the impeachment of Clinton, that was completely partisan. Bush's failures, on the other hand, were far numerous and deeper than Clinton's, but there was no will to impeach him from the Republican congress. How could they? They were too busy rubberstamping and whitewashing his activities.
I must be one crazy person then
I like Scalia and hate Thomas. I figure that Alito is probably more dangerous than Scalia, anyway.
No imperial presidency!
Liberals hate threats to their power
It's curious indeed how McCain went from beloved maverick to evil-old-cranky-angry-guy in the liberal meme-thought-bubble back in Feb. ... and then right up until his gracious concession speech, the venom flowed ... then it stopped.
Palin really freaked out the liberals both on a "OMG, she might work" level, and a visceral prejudice of the urban liberal elites against her whole lifestyle and background.
Newt is a threat for the clear and present danger based on his many ideas and his ability package and articulate them. For example the "Drill here, drill now".
Libs find a stereotype to use and they run with it. They'll stereotype and demonize in some unique way whoever is effective enough to be a threat to them.
Newt's experiences stem from an electoral map 12 years ago so Steele's experience may be more recent with electoral politics.
But Newt won a national election when he led the House republicans in 1994. For all the good things about Steele, he couldnt crack Maryland in 2006, I dont think he has greater insight on how to win nationally in 2010 electoral map.
Maybe Newt/Steele as Chair / Vice-Chair.
as a liberal, I'd say palin
newt knew how to compromise, for gods sakes!
also, palin's support for forcing her daughter to marry a rapist is disturbing...
liberal smears Palin family
RisingTide: Your slandering of the Palin family is what's disturbing.
it's only slander if there's no evidence for it.
and if i am knowingly reporting somethign that will cause harm.
there is evidence for this, and if you want to say that there is not, Sarah must be a really bad parent, to have created a child who was eager to sacrifice her mother for a few moments' pleasure.
Newt has my vote. Savvy,
Newt has my vote. Savvy, pragmatic and smart enough to get us out of the wilderness and back on track. He understands the challenges we face.
Yes, Newt :)
A guy who brought a great deal of power back to the party in the 90's and has been critical of the not-so-conservative Bush administration is a perfect fit. While I don't dislike Steele, I think Newt has the better resume given our current situation.
In terms of Newt as RNC Chair, I don't think we could do better in terms of showing the nation that the last President didn't necessarily represent us.
I know people talk about a 'new face', but reminding them that the old, powerful Republican circut is still there and will stop the Dems in their tracks once again is in my opinion, a great way to put the party back on the map.
What can we do to help Newt
What can we do to help Newt get the Chairmanship?
Support Newt for RNC Chair
1. Send a note of support to your state's RNC Committeeman and Committeewoman and state party chairman/ or chairwoman. If you dont know who they are , you can get that info here:
http://www.gop.com/Connect/States.aspx
I happen to have the emails of committee folks and state executive director, so I sent a note. Even if you dont, you can work your way up, sending notes of support to county party chair etc. and asking they forward it on.
2. talk it up in blogs like this and Redstate, etc.
3. Contact talk radio personalities in support of it. If Hannity, Rush and Laura Ingraham are behind it, you will get a lot of publicity, probably enough to make this a done deal if it as popular in general as it is here.
Does he even want it?
We have to figure out whether or not he wants it. Does anyone know how we could convey to him that he has that support? The best thing that I can think of, to start, is to make a website that drafts the reasons as to why Newt would make a great RNC chair, and have people sign it like a petition ... Then of course, we'd spread that like wildfire - on facebook, conservative blogs all over the internet, to Newt's own website / facebook page, etc ... Maybe, assuming the website works out and we could get enough signatures, we could even turn it into a news story and write a press release about it?
Who's game? I don't have the time to make a website or anything, but I'm more than willing to participate in such an effort.
If anyone wants to discuss an idea like this, email me: CWhalen@gmail.com.
Newt wants the job of RNC chair
Se here:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2127267/posts
that would be great for the party
I hope he accepts. I'm curious to see what changes he'll make.
Bad sign
The one thing that worries me is his stating that when it came down to it, he would have voted for the bailout :-/
http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2008/09/gingrich-now-ba.html
Initially, because he was very much against it, I didn't think he'd change his tune. Unfortunately however, this article explains otherwise.
bailout or martial law
take your pick.
I'm so fucking glad we can have this discussion, and that I get to eat tonight.
Aren't you?