Gingrich 2012 Prez Run Now Plausible

Unless or until he announces at some point that he is not running, I am coming out two years early in support of Newt Gingrich for President in 2012. Here is the first of a series of articles regarding this potential Republican hopeful, a true Conservative who, if he really wants it, is the best person for the job in this man's opinion.

Let me first do what some in this business fail to do: Reveal a potential conflict of interest and remind readers that I served as Newt Gingrich's political chairman before and while he was speaker of the House. I've known him 30 years. But those who follow this column, including Gingrich, have not always enjoyed my views on some of his words or actions.


Newt knows I am an independent thinker, and while I'm not on his level of political genius, I might be a bit more in touch with the daily grind that faces most Americans every day.

So what's my take on this week's disclosure from Newt that he might run for president in 2012? First comes an initial, perhaps superficial reaction: Mitt Romney seems more charismatic, better organized and hungrier for the job than any other potential 2012 candidate. Sarah Palin is attractive, also charismatic and an ambitious potential candidate. Even Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty, who is not well known, has a lot of "curb appeal" as a young candidate on the rise.

But I don't discount a Gingrich run. The presidential campaign of 2008 was about style over content. John McCain won GOP the nomination because Mike Huckabee, who shocked the Republicans by winning in Iowa, was viewed as perhaps too socially conservative. Romney seemed stiffer and "slicker" that year. He was too closely aligned with the unpopular George W. Bush camp. The GOP voters went for the image of "the maverick" in John McCain. It didn't work.

As for the Democrats and ultimately the nation, the elegant, charming and oratorically gifted Barack Obama represented a "change" as much in style as in substance. Oh, yes, there ultimately was plenty of substance in the change Obama brought to the nation as president. It just has not been the kind of change that many independent voters who supported him were expecting.

I have seen Newt Gingrich reinvent -- or perhaps better to say, "evolve" -- many times in his career. First, he was the bright new Republican conservative thinker in an overwhelmingly majority Democratic House in the late 1970s and the 1980s. By the early 1990s, he was the bomb-throwing, take-no-prisoners fighter who helped oust Speaker Jim Wright from power. By the mid-1990s, he was still a "revolutionary," but one with a detailed plan of action and a band of Republican "brothers and sisters" in the House willing to follow his lead to a huge 1994 electoral takeover of that chamber.

Then there were the years in the "wilderness," a term once used to describe Winston Churchill after his having led his nation through World War II, only to be later tossed out of power, at least for a while. Gingrich resigned after much internal GOP fighting. Yes, there is always the "he has baggage" argument. But years have passed, and Americans have short memories and forgiving hearts.

Now we see Newt Gingrich the "elder statesman." When Gingrich speaks, not only do cable news, talk radio and conservative popular news and opinion sites take note, so too does the "media establishment" that once ruled the airwaves and print journalism in America.

No, Gingrich will never match a Palin or Romney in a contest of style or youthful appearance. But in 2012, he will be the same age as Ronald Reagan was when he won the presidency for the first time. In that contest, the dashing John Connally and the elegant George H.W. Bush were viewed as the early frontrunners in the GOP race, along with other younger stars like Howard Baker.

Remember how Reagan moved from being viewed as an elder conservative also-ran to frontrunner status. It was one debate held in New Hampshire where the establishment GOP tried to keep Reagan from speaking. "I paid for this microphone," Reagan blasted as the moderator attempted to have him silenced.

And while I often discount the power of debates, it was the CNN/YouTube debate late in 2007 that catapulted Mike Huckabee toward a win in Iowa. And if you really want to reach back in time, I can name several presidential contests in which the debates turned the tide and the outcome of the election.

I can see Gingrich potentially playing roles like these. He is not an unappealing man. His grey hair and the calm manner in which he analyses issues gives those who view him a sense that there is still around at least this one bright, able -- and stable -- statesman. Do you really think any of the Republican contenders -- to say nothing of Barack Obama -- would want to debate Newt Gingrich?

A Gingrich run is more plausible than many think. Depending on an assortment of factors, it could just work for the Republican Party.

WRITTEN BY: Matt Towery at Human Events with the original article available by clicking on the title of this entry

Dem Ticket Palin by Comparison

The 2008 U.S. Presidential election just keeps on getting more and more interesting with every passing day. Of course this pace cannot continue, and now that both parties have set their full tickets things will settle down a bit to the serious campaigning, particularly once next week's Republican National Convention passes. But what presumptive Republican nominee John McCain did today was toss a serious curve ball to the Democrats and their nominee Barrack Obama. For months, the McCain camp has pointed at a lack of experience on Obama's part as a serious shortcoming. And for their part, the Obama folks have called McCain nothing more than the same old tired Washington politics, and a continuation of Bush policies. So when given the chance to name Vice-Presidential running mates, who did each candidate choose? Obama chose the ultimate Washington insider, Senator Joe Biden of Delaware, a man whose middle name is 'same old politics'. Then today McCain names as his running mate the Governor of Alaska, Sara Palin, whose national political experience is almost as short as Obama's. So the Dems have a man at the head of their ticket who is a 3-year Senator with no governing experience, where 2 of those years have been spent running for President, and a man at the back end of their ticket who is as 'more of the same old Washington politics' as any person around. Meanwhile the Republicans have at the top of their ticket a seasoned political veteran and universally acknowledged American hero, and at the back end of the ticket a woman, the first woman to ever be nominated on the top Republican ticket. Once the shock of not having someone like Tom Ridge, Mitt Romney, Tim Pawlenty, or even Joe Lieberman as the Veep choice wears off, the conservative base of the Republican party should find much to love about Sara Palin. First off, she is pro-life, which should be a litmus test for any Republican. Second, she is a lifetime member of the NRA, an outdoors woman with a passion for intelligent, informed environmentalism and the 2nd amendment. Her state's proximity to Russia and it's abundance in prospective oil make her experiences with those issues stronger than most. She has governed, albeit for just the past two years in Alaska. But that is two more years than the man at the top of the Dems ticket has ever governed in his life. In her personal life, she was born in Idaho and raised in Alaska. She is the 20-year wife of her high school boyfriend. And she is a 5-time mom, having just given birth in April to her 2nd son, a Downs Syndrome child. She is a woman, a wife, a mother, a Governor. She is an attractive, articulate, intelligent Vice-Presidential candidate for the Republican Party, which makes this ticket every bit as historic as the Dems ticket. Uh, yes, I did say she was attractive. That is not a slight or a sin to notice. The woman was the runner-up in the Miss Alaska pageant a couple decades back, and still looks great today. So sue me for noticing. In November, the United States will either elect it's first African-American to one of the top two offices, or the first woman. Experienced war hero backed by governing, conservative woman on the Republican side, or inexperienced liberal backed by old-time Washington politico on the Democrat side. The choice is now clear, and when held up against the light of the Republican ticket, the Dems choice is palin' by comparison.

Veepstakes: Does it Matter?

The Democratic National Convention kicks off next Monday, August 25th, in Denver and the liberal party will select Barrack Obama as their party nominee for the Presidency. The Republican National Convention will then get underway the following week, on September 1st in Minneapolis. There the conservative party will nominate John McCain as their party nominee for the Presidency. There will be much hoopla, a great deal of pomp and circumstance, and a large amount of partisan blathering from any number of talking heads. In the next few days and into next week there will be a great deal of speculation as to whom each party's prospective nominee will be selecting as a running-mate. The selection of a Vice-Presidential candidate to run with the Presidential candidate on their party 'ticket' is seen as a key moment in any campaign. Very often the Presidential candidate and his advisers look to pick an individual who embodies the values of that Presidential nominee, but who also has differences that can be helpful in drawing voters to the ticket. For instance, someone from the Northeast might decide to pick a Southerner, or someone from the West might choose someone from the East Coast. Someone from the heartland in the Mid-West might choose from the East or the South. Someone deemed inexperienced in world affairs might choose a veteran politico with such experience. Someone with a military background might opt for a partner with a stronger record handling domestic issues, and so on. In the entire history of major party politics in the United States there have been two major things that nearly all candidates have had in common, whether for the Presidency or the Vice-Presidency: they have been white, and they have been male. There was only one major party female candidate in history, that being 1984 Veep candidate Geraldine Ferraro (pictured), who ran alongside former Vice-President Walter Mondale. The Mondale-Ferraro ticket was squashed by the re-election campaign of Ronald Reagan, and there has been no straying from the 'white males only' club until now. When the Dems put Obama's name into nomination, and select him as their candidate, he will become the first black male, the first non-white at all, to ever be nominated for the highest office in the land. Of course, he will pick a white male as his running mate. There are many people who don't feel that the U.S. is ready to elect a black man as it's President, especially one with as liberal a record as Obama's. However, even those who believe that time is now understand that TWO candidates, both the Prez and the Veep, cannot break the 'white male club' barrier in the same year on the same ticket. So the leading contenders most often mentioned are Delaware Senator Joe Biden, Viriginia Governor Tim Kaine, and Indiana Senator Evan Bayh. The Dems have even revived the ghost of , gasp, John Kerry as a possibility. The call here is that Biden will get the nod. He is extremely strong on international policy and national security issues, two areas which the public perceives as weaknesses for Obama, and he has already been 'vetted'. The vetting process is where the prospective candidate is investigated and interviewed to determine their suitability to be on the team and not bring embarrassment to the campaign in the form of any unwanted 'skeletons in the closet'. On the Republican side the names most frequently mentioned lately seem to be former Prez candidate and Massachusetts Guv Mitt Romney, Pennsylvania Governor and Homeland Security head Tom Ridge, and youthful Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty. Any of these three would be great candidates, but Pawlenty may just be too 'unknown' yet nationally. There have even been some who have dug up the old idea of Dem turncoat Joe Lieberman. Romney would be an incredible choice, but he seems like a pipe dream. Ridge is the call here. He was a strong Governor and has perhaps the best resume of any candidate on either side of the aisle. If they were selected, both Biden and Ridge would be outstanding candidates, as would many others selected in their stead. But what difference will they make in the end? Does McCain need a young guy to make folks forget his age? Does Obama need a white guy to make folks forget that he is black? Does McCain need a northeast guy to offset his western ruggedness? Does Obama need an experienced tough-guy to overcome his ultra-liberalism and inexperience dealing with foreign heads of state? No matter, will whomever each selects make a difference to voters? The odds are that both will go with relatively 'safe' choices that will not alienate their base, and that will seemingly be attractive to undecided voters. But I believe that it really doesn't, or at least shouldn't, matter who they might pick. The odds are that you are about to get 8 years of either Obama or McCain, and that the Veep won't matter one bit. It is the policies and personalities of Obama and McCain that not only matter the most, but that frankly matter at all. If you are going to vote for your Presidential candidate because of whom he selects as his Veep running mate, then maybe you need to be rethinking your decision to vote for them entirely. The Veep nominees will be selected in the coming days, and there will be a great deal of publicity about the selections. But in the end, it is the Presidential candidates who really count.