Who Is on the Horizon for the GOP?

Gingrich would have, IMO, no chance for the reason you state.

The left and the media have a tactic where given words are turned, in the minds of the public, into curse words. Simply hearing the word that has gotten this treatment results in instant negative reaction for most of the public.

An example: the word “Halliburton.”

Now most people actually know nothing about Halliburton – couldn’t fill up an index card with everything they know of it, in large print – but they’ve been programmed to have an instant negative reaction.

This was done with the word “Gingrich.”

The result is that a high percentage of people have an instant negative reaction on hearing the word, regardless if they actually know anything about him or not. It’s visceral.

I have heard rumors, or maybe speculation, of Karl Rove, but I think his association with George W blows it for him.

[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
Gingrich would have, IMO, no chance for the reason you state.

The left and the media have a tactic where given words are turned, in the minds of the public, into curse words. Simply hearing the word that has gotten this treatment results in instant negative reaction for most of the public.

An example: the word “Halliburton.”

Now most people actually know nothing about Halliburton – couldn’t fill up an index card with everything they know of it, in large print – but they’ve been programmed to have an instant negative reaction.

This was done with the word “Gingrich.”

The result is that a high percentage of people have an instant negative reaction on hearing the word, regardless if they actually know anything about him or not. It’s visceral.[/quote]

Absolutely my point. Even though I believe he resigned his speakership to spare the party and the country more bogus investigations, I can see the ads already about how his own party forced him out. All anybody knows or thinks they know, is that he was involved in something “fishy” and controversial back in the day. Half of em (or more) wouldn’t probably even know he was speaker of the house.

Thaddeus Mccotter all the way!
Seriously this guy is a genius.

[quote]charlotte49er wrote:
Thaddeus Mccotter all the way!
Seriously this guy is a genius.[/quote]

He’s my Rep and I love the guy, but he did get a little squishy where the auto bailouts were concerned.

Man I would love to see a Hunter/Palin or Palin/Hunter GOP ticket in 12, that would get the 10-20% of the single-issue only, nothing but abortion matters at all, voters and probably very little more. Ann Cuntler endorsed Hunter in 08, that’s all I’ll ever need to know about his platform.

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
Bill Roberts wrote:
Gingrich would have, IMO, no chance for the reason you state.

The left and the media have a tactic where given words are turned, in the minds of the public, into curse words. Simply hearing the word that has gotten this treatment results in instant negative reaction for most of the public.

An example: the word “Halliburton.”

Now most people actually know nothing about Halliburton – couldn’t fill up an index card with everything they know of it, in large print – but they’ve been programmed to have an instant negative reaction.

This was done with the word “Gingrich.”

The result is that a high percentage of people have an instant negative reaction on hearing the word, regardless if they actually know anything about him or not. It’s visceral.

Absolutely my point. Even though I believe he resigned his speakership to spare the party and the country more bogus investigations, I can see the ads already about how his own party forced him out. All anybody knows or thinks they know, is that he was involved in something “fishy” and controversial back in the day. Half of em (or more) wouldn’t probably even know he was speaker of the house.
[/quote]

Gingrich would have no chance because he’s a horrible choice. It has nothing to do with any perceived vulnerability to attacks from the left. He resigned because he’d become an albatross around his Party’s neck. The “fishy” situation you refer to was misuse of tax-exempt funds that he openly admitted to providing false info about during the Senate’s investigation. He paid $300,000 to cover the costs of the investigation into him and another $300,000 after the House fined him when they voted 395 to 28 (a Republican-controlled House) to reprimand him for ethics violations going all the way back to 1994.

The idea that Gingrich or Palin or whomever would come under attack from the left and that the left turns words like Gingrich or Halliburton into “bad words” is ludicrous. Gingrich’s own actions led to his censure and forced ouster by HIS OWN PARTY. This is what’s wrong with the GOP right now: a failure to acknowledge and address its own shortcomings and a growing reliance on blaming its faults on acts of savagery from the left. The GOP fucked up big-time by letting Palin onto the ticket. McCain was neck and neck with Obama before she was named and even surged ahead of him right afterwards, but once the country figured Palin out, they got blown out. The GOP needs to acknowledge this blunder rather than continue to blame her poor image amongst all but seriously hard-line, dedicated Republicans on the left and their attacks. If not, they’ll continue to come up with people like Palin who have no place in big-time national politics and names like Gingrich whose last elected position ended in shame eleven years ago due to his own mistakes.

I’m a Libertarian, not a Democrat, and I know that my candidate may never win, but I’d like to see the Republican Party get back to its traditional values. The fact that the Libertarian Party is the fastest-growing political party out there should be a clear indicator that the GOP (who used to closely resemble the LP) can gain more supporters by moving back toward the LP’s philosophies, like they used to be pre-1975. The GOP needs to do something different; it’s hard not to deny this given the huge electoral blowout McCain suffered and the huge majority the Dems now hold in Congress. These are clear signs that America wants change, and the GOP of the last eight to twelve years isn’t gonna bring it. If the GOP wants to gain some of its viability back, it needs to abandon disgraced retreads and born losers like Gingrich and Palin.

Sorry, I think, based on observing very many reactions, that it is correct that the left and the media succeed in turning, in many cases, names of those they don’t like into “curse words” (words yielding immediate negative response not based on the hearer knowing facts yielding that response, but just feeling he knows he hates that) whereas this does not occur with names of corrupt Democrats, because of no such effective campaign to demonize their names.

To deny the effect as you do is I think to miss an important thing. It is true that some politicians names yield extreme negative reflexive responses from most even when those people cannot say a single fact as to why they feel the way they do. Denying that effect is denying an important phenomenon.

I’m not denying that effect outright. What I’m getting at is that the effect is made possible due to the politicians’ own actions more than anything else. There are many Republicans whose names are not “curse words” because they haven’t done anything to attract such derision from their opposition, Jindal being one. On top of that, it isn’t above Republicans to do the same regarding words or names. “Clinton” and “socialism” are two prime examples. I’m not crazy about either one of those, but Republicans have taken those words and turned them into the same things you accuse the left of turning “Gingrich” and “Halliburton” into.

That’s the nature of politics and if you or Republicans in general believe that is truly what will keep Gingrich out of the race, pull your head out of the sand. Gingrich isn’t a good choice and it has nothing to do with his perception amongst Democrats. There’s a reason he hasn’t run for public office since 1998.

Disagree: most who are opposed to socialism know what it is and know why they don’t like it. It is not the phenomenon I was talking about.

With Clinton, it’s possible that in some subgroups, not the general population, that effect has been achieved, but again generally the person has specific reasons they can name for their dislike, which differs from the effect I am referring to.

With respect to your closing paragraph, I hope you understand that when a person gives a reason this is not a statement that it is the only reason. It was, in this case, a statement that I think is sufficient reason: the immediate, visceral reaction to his name experienced by a high percentage of the population even if they have no idea they can name as to why. But if you understand that then I don’t know why you wrote that paragraph as you did, or indeed why you considered the matter a necessary point to argue at all.

When a person’s name generates immediate negative visceral reaction in a high percentage of the population, he is not going to do well in elections. That is simple enough.

Great discussion!

Something that I wanted to point out (that I know many of you realize).

A candidate has to be able to hold his own on a WIDE range of topics.

While a few of the people that have been mentioned got themselves into the public spotlight due to an impassioned speech on the floor; or criticism of the government as a whole; or a catchy “gimmick”? like Gingrich’s “Contract With America”…

Being a “specialist”, or looking good on “C-SPAN” will not sustain you even through the early stages of a campaign. Either the press will eat you up; you’ll misstep; you’ll get KILLED in the debates; or “all-of-the-above”.

Now…I know that some of you may think “Oh…so its all “show” and no “substance”?”

No…that is NOT what I’m saying. What I’m saying is that if your “guy” of “gal” is a one or two issue person, they will never make it out of the Primaries.

Mufasa

I’ve skimmed the rest of the posts, so I’m probably repeating something here, but here goes.
I agree with every one who has said Palin is done politically. I liked Palin, and was amazed at how quickly the media threw her under the bus in order to elect Obama. She wasn’t the most polished candidate, but she only had a few weeks to read up on the issues, I think the McCain campaign really hurt her image by rushing her in as the VP candidate. Biden has made as many, if not more, gaffs than Palin, but he is apparently untouchable. However, nothing will ever change the fact that she quit. I’ve heard what her reasons were, and can empathize, but quitting is inexcusable.

I like Romney, I’d like to see him run for President again. I like the fact that he has experience in business. I can’t stand Huckabee, he was practically sucking the dick of the religious right. I think the only good thing to come out of this election is that conservatives won’t have to court the religious right in future elections.

Jindal has no business running for President

[quote]artw wrote:
<<< it has nothing to do with his perception amongst Democrats. >>>[/quote]

No, it has to do with his perception among the mindless “middle” who decide every election. It has gotten to the point where if we could lay bare the secret lives of everybody in DC and expel all those with some kind of ethics violation or corruption hidden therein, C-Span would consist of chirping crickets and an occasional vacuum cleaner… maybe. Bill Clinton was in the middle perjuring himself before the entire nation during this same time frame.

Given a choice among lying, thieving, narcissistic, back stabbing whores, Gingrich has a record of policies I like more than most and is no more corrupt than anybody else who will run. His problem is, just enough of his secrets are known to provide credible ammunition to a media that would blitz him anyway. His marriage record is pretty disastrous too.

To this day the MSM loves Clinton and hates guys like Gingrich and portrays them accordingly in their reportage. My next door neighbors are perfect examples of the result. They’re in their early 20’s and supported Obama because he was cool complete with lawn signs etc. I gave him a word association test about 5 minutes ago.

Me: Bill Clinton:

Him: (Kinda perks up) well the economy was pretty good

Me: Newt Gingrich

Him: (sort of a sour scowl as he tries to think) wasn’t he that guy that got thrown out of the government for doin sumthin?

Tiribulus:

I actually thought that “The Contract With America” was a solid set of fundamental ideas…and I really, at that time, liked what he had to say.

But don’t you think that Gingrich was/is his own worst enemy?

I think that there was a time that he was a VERY viable Presidential Candidate…then he just seemed to slowly self-destruct.

Mufasa

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
artw wrote:
<<< it has nothing to do with his perception amongst Democrats. >>>

No, it has to do with his perception among the mindless “middle” who decide every election. It has gotten to the point where if we could lay bare the secret lives of everybody in DC and expel all those with some kind of ethics violation or corruption hidden therein, C-Span would consist of chirping crickets and an occasional vacuum cleaner… maybe. Bill Clinton was in the middle perjuring himself before the entire nation during this same time frame.

Given a choice among lying, thieving, narcissistic, back stabbing whores, Gingrich has a record of policies I like more than most and is no more corrupt than anybody else who will run. His problem is, just enough of his secrets are known to provide credible ammunition to a media that would blitz him anyway. His marriage record is pretty disastrous too.

To this day the MSM loves Clinton and hates guys like Gingrich and portrays them accordingly in their reportage. My next door neighbors are perfect examples of the result. They’re in their early 20’s and supported Obama because he was cool complete with lawn signs etc. I gave him a word association test about 5 minutes ago.

Me: Bill Clinton:

Him: (Kinda perks up) well the economy was pretty good

Me: Newt Gingrich

Him: (sort of a sour scowl as he tries to think) wasn’t he that guy that got thrown out of the government for doin sumthin?

[/quote]

First of all, since when has Gingrish’s name become such a harbinger of doom across the board to begin with? Where is his name synonymous with evil, the Daily Show? Give me a break and quit trying to present Gingrich and other poor Republican choices for President as some helpless victim of the “leftist media”. Clinton AND Obama get bashed harder and more frequently for more trivial things on FoxNews than anything Gingrich has suffered recently on CNN or MSNBC. I watch all three of these channels regularly and I probably watch Fox the most. The double-standard you’re setting here is comical.

This is exactly what I mean when I say the GOP needs to look at themselves first. All you’ve done since my original post is gloss over or ignore all of Gingrich’s clearcut faults as a candidate and accused the left of turning him into some sort of villain whose name is synonymous to all sorts of horrible connotations. If you want to have a serious political discussion about anything (when I say you I mean people in general, not you specifically, although this pertains to you.) people need to be willing to question their own beliefs and values and have the courage to examine whether they themselves may be wrong in some areas first.

Politics isn’t sports. The point isn’t to “root” for your team/party no matter what. You can change your mind or agree with both parties on various topics without being accused of disloyalty or of being a fairweather fan. The reality is that neither party represents a person’s beliefs 100% on every single topic. The way people refuse to acknowledge their own party’s shortcomings and refuse to demand that their party fix these things while blaming them on the opposition is THE central problem in the extremely polarized political landscape in America right now. Sure, people like Pelosi or Cheney don’t help, but they’re just symptoms of the larger problem. If you or anyone else is going to continue to hammer away at the belief that Gingrich won’t the GOP nomination or the Presidency in '12 because of anything other than his own faults or the better qualities of his GOP or Democratic opponents, then you’re jsut part of the problem.

People need to demand more from their leaders in America. People don’t need to look for reasons to make excuses for their leaders shortcomings out of some sense of loyalty or refusal to accept that their own party isn’t always right. Republicans AND Democrats both have great ideas about various issues, but you’ll never hear either side acknowledge this about the other.

[quote]artw wrote:
Tiribulus wrote:
artw wrote:
<<< it has nothing to do with his perception amongst Democrats. >>>

No, it has to do with his perception among the mindless “middle” who decide every election. It has gotten to the point where if we could lay bare the secret lives of everybody in DC and expel all those with some kind of ethics violation or corruption hidden therein, C-Span would consist of chirping crickets and an occasional vacuum cleaner… maybe. Bill Clinton was in the middle perjuring himself before the entire nation during this same time frame.

Given a choice among lying, thieving, narcissistic, back stabbing whores, Gingrich has a record of policies I like more than most and is no more corrupt than anybody else who will run. His problem is, just enough of his secrets are known to provide credible ammunition to a media that would blitz him anyway. His marriage record is pretty disastrous too.

To this day the MSM loves Clinton and hates guys like Gingrich and portrays them accordingly in their reportage. My next door neighbors are perfect examples of the result. They’re in their early 20’s and supported Obama because he was cool complete with lawn signs etc. I gave him a word association test about 5 minutes ago.

Me: Bill Clinton:

Him: (Kinda perks up) well the economy was pretty good

Me: Newt Gingrich

Him: (sort of a sour scowl as he tries to think) wasn’t he that guy that got thrown out of the government for doin sumthin?

First of all, since when has Gingrish’s name become such a harbinger of doom across the board to begin with? Where is his name synonymous with evil, the Daily Show? Give me a break and quit trying to present Gingrich and other poor Republican choices for President as some helpless victim of the “leftist media”. Clinton AND Obama get bashed harder and more frequently for more trivial things on FoxNews than anything Gingrich has suffered recently on CNN or MSNBC. I watch all three of these channels regularly and I probably watch Fox the most. The double-standard you’re setting here is comical.

This is exactly what I mean when I say the GOP needs to look at themselves first. All you’ve done since my original post is gloss over or ignore all of Gingrich’s clearcut faults as a candidate and accused the left of turning him into some sort of villain whose name is synonymous to all sorts of horrible connotations. If you want to have a serious political discussion about anything (when I say you I mean people in general, not you specifically, although this pertains to you.) people need to be willing to question their own beliefs and values and have the courage to examine whether they themselves may be wrong in some areas first.

Politics isn’t sports. The point isn’t to “root” for your team/party no matter what. You can change your mind or agree with both parties on various topics without being accused of disloyalty or of being a fairweather fan. The reality is that neither party represents a person’s beliefs 100% on every single topic. The way people refuse to acknowledge their own party’s shortcomings and refuse to demand that their party fix these things while blaming them on the opposition is THE central problem in the extremely polarized political landscape in America right now. Sure, people like Pelosi or Cheney don’t help, but they’re just symptoms of the larger problem. If you or anyone else is going to continue to hammer away at the belief that Gingrich won’t the GOP nomination or the Presidency in '12 because of anything other than his own faults or the better qualities of his GOP or Democratic opponents, then you’re jsut part of the problem.

People need to demand more from their leaders in America. People don’t need to look for reasons to make excuses for their leaders shortcomings out of some sense of loyalty or refusal to accept that their own party isn’t always right. Republicans AND Democrats both have great ideas about various issues, but you’ll never hear either side acknowledge this about the other.[/quote]

You are way late to this game on these boards pal.

[quote]Mufasa wrote:
Tiribulus:

I actually thought that “The Contract With America” was a solid set of fundamental ideas…and I really, at that time, liked what he had to say.

But don’t you think that Gingrich was/is his own worst enemy?

I think that there was a time that he was a VERY viable Presidential Candidate…then he just seemed to slowly self-destruct.

Mufasa[/quote]

I am not saying that Gingrich’s fate was not deserved, never have. When Rainjack brought him up last year I was the first to say that his baggage would kill him before he got anywhere. The point is he is no worse than anybody else. What would happen if we could get some pressure on Rangel? Where;s the outrage there. Where’s the outrage over the fact that the guy who is at this moment in charge of the IRS didn’t pay the same taxes they hound us about paying. Where’s the outrage over that traitorous John Kerry being nominated for president.

How is it that Ted Kennedy who drove a young girl into a river while drunk and left her to die not only doesn’t go to jail, but gets to be senator for the next 40 years and is now hailed as one of the towering giants of senate history. At this very moment there are several liberal dems guilty of violations at least on the level of what Gingrich did, but with him it’s an instant disqualification. They are all crooked self serving lowlifes regardless of party, but unless there is absolutely no way to avoid it only conservatives are ultimately held to account. Edwards was only exposed when the frickin National Enquirer finally broke that story.

If the economy turns around, Obama will win in a landslide. If not, even Sarah Palin could be president.

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
Mufasa wrote:
Tiribulus:

I actually thought that “The Contract With America” was a solid set of fundamental ideas…and I really, at that time, liked what he had to say.

But don’t you think that Gingrich was/is his own worst enemy?

I think that there was a time that he was a VERY viable Presidential Candidate…then he just seemed to slowly self-destruct.

Mufasa

I am not saying that Gingrich’s fate was not deserved, never have. When Rainjack brought him up last year I was the first to say that his baggage would kill him before he got anywhere. The point is he is no worse than anybody else.

What would happen if we could get some pressure on Rangel? Where;s the outrage there. Where’s the outrage over the fact that the guy who is at this moment in charge of the IRS didn’t pay the same taxes they hound us about paying. Where’s the outrage over that traitorous John Kerry being nominated for president.

How is it that Ted Kennedy who drove a young girl into a river while drunk and left her to die not only doesn’t go to jail, but gets to be senator for the next 40 years and is now hailed as one of the towering giants of senate history.

At this very moment there are several liberal dems guilty of violations at least on the level of what Gingrich did, but with him it’s an instant disqualification. They are all crooked self serving lowlifes regardless of party, but unless there is absolutely no way to avoid it only conservatives are ultimately held to account. Edwards was only exposed when the frickin National Enquirer finally broke that story.

[/quote]

Tiribulus:

For better or worse; a lot of this has to do with the balance of “friends” (or a better term would be “allies”) and “enemies”.

To survive politically you better hope you have an abundance of the former (or at least some powerful ones)…and less of the latter.

Part of what happened to Gingrich (and as I’ve mentioned in another thread about Palin)…Gingrich created a lot of enemies on both sides of the aisle without creating a lot of allies, because he began to believe his own rhetoric and power. The very same thing happened in Alaska with Palin.

Power…influence…allies…enemies…

Welcome to the U.S. Congress.

Mufasa

[quote]dtheyer wrote:
If the economy turns around, Obama will win in a landslide. If not, even Sarah Palin could be president.[/quote]

Yep…“It’s the economy, stupid!”

Mufasa