thatoneguyinslc thatoneguyinslc

Newt in 2008?

▼

Newt in 2008?

He's baaaaaaaaaack?

from JoeUser Forums
Apparantly Newt Gingrich is considering a run for prez in 2008. And he ain't happy with his party either.

Link

Like he has a snowballs chance in hell.


thanks for reading,
thatoneguyinslc
politics
20,586 views 58 replies
Reply #26 from JoeUser Forums Top
Well, there are those who are pushing for a constitutional amendment to allow the arnold the terminator to run in '08. I doubt that would happen.

Newt in '08 would sure be an experience in going backwards, rather than forwards. Besides, he was so disgraced after his failed contract, his illegal campaign contributions, and his hypocrisy, I'd doubt he'd stand a chance.

As for Howard's dumb scream, I don't understand what was so awful about that. It was just an emotional outburst during a time of emotional rallying. People and the press made such dumb hay over it, it just killed his career. I was not a Dean supporter, but the incident and aftermath left me just wondering. I soon found out.........................
Reply #27 from JoeUser Forums Top
Warner is a possible candidate.Seems the folks in VA like him well enough. Good call Guy.

You mean G. Gordon Liddy? (kiddin) Elizibeth Dole....She's probably the only woman with a legitimate shot.

I agree that the scream thing wasn't that big of a deal, but that kind of thing sticks in the public's mind. Also i think that if we dems learned anything this last go-around is that the public is not going to vote for an "uber-liberal" candidate. We are going to have to run a moderate. I like Dr Dean, but i did not support him (i'm a Wes Clark fan).
Sins of a Solar Empire II
Reply #28 from JoeUser Forums Top

You mean G. Gordon Liddy? (kiddin) Elizibeth Dole....She's probably the only woman with a legitimate shot.

I agree that the scream thing wasn't that big of a deal, but that kind of thing sticks in the public's mind. Also i think that if we dems learned anything this last go-around is that the public is not going to vote for an "uber-liberal" candidate. We are going to have to run a moderate. I like Dr Dean, but i did not support him (i'm a Wes Clark fan).

Libby, Liddy, hey, I am just dyslexic at times.

The Problem with Warner is no experience.  He basically bought the governorship, but that is all he has ever done.  That could be good or bad.  NOt being very familiar with other states (other than the ones in the News Like CA or WA), I dont know the governors that well.  But there has been some buzz about the Iowa governor.  I think the Democrats would do best getting out of the NE, even if their candidate is not quite the moderate they may want.  I just dont see a Senator winning.

How About Richardson?  Got all the Qualifications and seems a man of impecable credentials.  ANd he would be a first.  I think he could capture the middle quite easily, especially if the Republicans run a hard conservative.

Reply #29 from JoeUser Forums Top
I like Bill. He has, as they say in New Mexico...Cajones!
Reply #30 from JoeUser Forums Top
gahd, I'd love four more years of Bill

thats why I hope they make him the next sec-gen of the UN
Reply #31 from JoeUser Forums Top

I like Bill. He has, as they say in New Mexico...Cajones

They say that here too!

Reply #32 from JoeUser Forums Top
Not that Bill Myr Bill Richardson.
Reply #33 from JoeUser Forums Top

Reply #31 By: Dr. Guy - 1/11/2005 11:51:26 AM
I like Bill. He has, as they say in New Mexico...Cajones

They say that here too!


Around here they say he has rocks in his head.
Reply #34 from PolMach Forums Top


Don't bet your life on that. You'd stand a BIG chance of losing.


I think it would be an interesting election. Bush might win if he can portray Clinton as a pre-9/11 leader who is weak on terror, but if Iraq goes badly, I wouldn't bet on a Republican win in '08. But Clinton's still pretty popular. I think it would be interesting and unpredictable, and a good one to watch.

thats why I hope they make him the next sec-gen of the UN


I wouldn't bet on an American secretary general too soon. I think Stephen Lewis would be a good choice for secretary general, but that is probably mostly due to me being Canadian.
Reply #35 from JoeUser Forums Top
I agree Latour. Stephen Lewis is definately a more viable candidate for the UN job than Bubba.

The jury is still out on 2008. The Ball is in the repubs court. But then again i have noticed when a two term president leaves office, the door usually swings the other way.

With the exception of Reagan/bush 1.0 that is. (I figured i had to point that out to keep Guy & miler off my a**)
Reply #36 from JoeUser Forums Top

(I figured i had to point that out to keep Guy & miler off my a**)

Sorry, I am not that type of Guy.  I definitely prefer the fairer sex!

And what you say is true, however, there have only been 3 instances in the last 70 years (one of which you mentioned).  I dont count Johnson, as he was only elected once, or Nixon since his scandal cost them the election in 76.  Still, 2-1 is good odds, so no arguments here.

Reply #37 from PolMach Forums Top
I dont count Johnson, as he was only elected once


I think LBJ might be the most relevant to this situation, because of the ongoing war in Iraq.
Reply #38 from JoeUser Forums Top

I think LBJ might be the most relevant to this situation, because of the ongoing war in Iraq

No, he is not for several reasons.

1. He decided not to run.  He could have.  Bush cant

2. Iraq is not Vietnam.

3. The point (of which I agree) is that the US usually changes horses after a 2 term president, so Johnson does not qualify there either.

Reply #39 from PolMach Forums Top
1. He decided not to run. He could have. Bush cant


Either way, they aren't running again, so we get a new cast of characters.

2. Iraq is not Vietnam.


I am not saying that Iraq is Vietnam, I'm saying that if it goes badly like Vietnam, Bush's successor would have a hard time winning the election.

3. The point (of which I agree) is that the US usually changes horses after a 2 term president, so Johnson does not qualify there either.


Either way, that's 8 years of Republican rule (Ike), followed by 8 years of Democratic rule (Kennedy/LBJ), followed by 8 years of Republican rule (Nixon/Ford), followed by a dem. I agree with the point, I'm just saying that if the war in Iraq continues until 2008, it will be hard for the Republicans to win.
Reply #40 from JoeUser Forums Top
Latour has gotcha there Guy with the exceptions of Reagan/bush 1.0 and Jimmy Carter. It has been a pretty static rotation since FDR.

I have to agree about 2008 as well.
Reply #41 from JoeUser Forums Top

Reply #40 By: thatoneguyinslc - 1/14/2005 12:36:13 AM
Latour has gotcha there Guy with the exceptions of Reagan/bush 1.0 and Jimmy Carter. It has been a pretty static rotation since FDR.

I have to agree about 2008 as well.


Not if the Democrats field Hillary! If they field someone else just maybe.
Reply #42 from JoeUser Forums Top

Latour has gotcha there Guy with the exceptions of Reagan/bush 1.0 and Jimmy Carter. It has been a pretty static rotation since FDR.

I have to agree about 2008 as well.

Actually not.  But I will accept his slightly altered premise, and agree with it.  However, I think there are other factors at work.  I think if Johnson had run, he would have won (he could have carried most of the south).  By the same token, if the Democrats run a North East Liberal in 08, they will lose.  That is really why the pattern was broken with Reagan/Bush1.

Reply #43 from PolMach Forums Top
Actually not. But I will accept his slightly altered premise, and agree with it. However, I think there are other factors at work. I think if Johnson had run, he would have won (he could have carried most of the south). By the same token, if the Democrats run a North East Liberal in 08, they will lose. That is really why the pattern was broken with Reagan/Bush1.


I don't know if LBJ would have won the south because of the Civil Rights Act. He lost most of the south in '64 to Goldwater, and Wallace won most of the south in '68. But either way, he didn't and HHH ran and lost.

No Northeast Liberals? Aww, I want Dean!
Reply #44 from JoeUser Forums Top
Which is precisely why they will not run a new englander. Prolly a midwesterner or a southener. Maybe even somebody from out my way!

Hillary? I really think she has no shot. She is too inexperienced, and too liberal. Were talking moderates in 2008. Which makes this moderate real happy!

As for the repubs, it's a short list.
Reply #45 from JoeUser Forums Top

Which is precisely why they will not run a new englander. Prolly a midwesterner or a southener. Maybe even somebody from out my way!

Hillary? I really think she has no shot. She is too inexperienced, and too liberal. Were talking moderates in 2008. Which makes this moderate real happy!

As for the repubs, it's a short list.

I will second that (moderate).  So who is on your Repubs short list?  I really see a wide open field.  I know that frist is thinking about it, but I have not heard any other serious names being bandied about.

Reply #46 from PolMach Forums Top
1. Rudy
2. Big John
3. Mitt Romney
4. Jeb
5. Bill Frist


I dont think Mitt has any chance. Jeb maybe, but he has already distanced himself. But if the Republicans are going to win, it will be either Rudy or Jeb.

As for your Democrats, Harry is pretty moderate, but he is a senator. I like Richardson better.

Things should start to clear up in a year. We will see then.
Reply #47 from JoeUser Forums Top
Well Guy, here it is

1. Rudy
2. Big John
3. Mitt Romney
4. Jeb
5. Bill Frist
Reply #48 from JoeUser Forums Top
I was just thinking i should put up a list of potential dems

1. Bob Graham (he's thinking about it)
2. John Edwards (longshot)
3. Bill Richardson
4. Howie ( too lib)
5. Hillary (ditto)
6. Wes Clark (needs to get elected to another office beforehand, so he's my real longshot)
7. Warner (needs to get out in the public eye more)
8. Al Sharpton
9. Barack Obama (my hopeful, but unlikely)
10. Harry Reid (like Mitt, i don't really think the US is ready for a Mormon prez)
Reply #49 from JoeUser Forums Top

Reply #47 By: thatoneguyinslc - 1/14/2005 12:37:31 PM
I was just thinking i should put up a list of potential dems

2. John Edwards (longshot)


Doesn't stand a snowballs chance in ....!
Reply #50 from JoeUser Forums Top
Agreed miler. I think his a** was thoroughly kicked in 04.

Guy, Mitt would like to run, but i agree he's in the longshot category.

Anyone else have any possibles? Post em!