Gingrich To Run In 2012?

Gingrich To Run In 2012?


Unlikely, but he’s making noises yet again.

From C-Span via Politics Daily:

C-SPAN: “If you were to run, what factors would you take into account? What would lead you to think about running?”

GINGRICH: “Callista and I are going to think about this in February 2011. And we are going to reach out to all of our friends around the country. And we’ll decide, if there’s a requirement as citizens that we run, I suspect we probably will. And if there’s not a requirement, if other people have filled the vacuum, I suspect we won’t.”

Here’s the thing…Newt knows he’d never win. His personal skeletons are simply too numerous and he doesn’t have mainstream appeal.

Still, as a VP candidate? I could see a Romney/Gingrich ticket being compelling to fiscal moderates.

See, Gingrich is like Cheney and Biden in that way. You’d never put him up for the top spot because he couldn’t win, but having that brain power behind the top guy/gal? All of a sudden his personal skeletons melt away…even though he’s still a heartbeat from the Oval Office.

What do you think?

  • Chris

    I think that would be another ticket I would never vote for, just like one with Palin on it.

  • wj

    No, Chris, not “just like one with Palin on it.” Gingrich, at least, has a clue about the world beyond the United States. And a clue about the issues that impact the nation. I may not always agree with him, but at least he is not starting from a position of abysmal ignorance.

  • Chris

    I’m not saying he’s like Palin at all, but to me he’s nearly as distasteful. But if I had to choose between the two for president, I would pick newtie fo shizzle.

  • wj

    It does say something about the current state of the GOP that they are now attacking even Newt as a RINO. 😉

  • Agnostick
  • kranky kritter

    Newt is a two-timing, philandering hypocrite. Is America really ready for a First Lady, Calista Bisek-Gingrich, who whored her way into the White House?

    This kind of stuff always cracks me up. Decades of watching America convinces me that it’s a serious mistake to expect Americans to care deeply about this sort of stuff, especially if it happened years and years ago.

    Now, I have no doubt that it would all get dredged up, get some folks riled up, and cost votes. But if you present a clear, coherent, sensible vision to voters and your opponent seems unconvincing or unknowledgeable or just plain full of shit, then you can win. [I’m speaking in the abstract here, not saying any of those qualities applies to Obama].

    November, 2012 is a long ways off. While most sensible Americans hope for our collective sake that we’ve rebounded substantially by then, it’s by no means an economic given. If unemployment is still 8 or 9 percent and an anemic recovery brings with it inflation and unpleasantly high interest rates, few guys will be better able to lay the blame for that at Obama’s feet.

    By February 2011, the economy and all of the fed government’s actions will be viewed as wholly Obama’s by the electorate. He’ll be the veteran qb, and he’ll take the blame for each W and each L. One can argue about how fair that is depending on the issue, but what you can’t do is dispute that it’s how American voters tend to keep score. Should America still be struggling (and I think we will be) it will be up to each of us to decide how much we’ll buy the “Obama is still cleaning up the last admin’s mess” argument.

    Under any scenario where the economy has failed to rebound to the satisfaction of the majoprity of Americans, I think Romney and Gingrich are the two guys who will be best able to make the argument that it’s due to Obama’s misguided policies. Please take care to note that I’m not saying here that Obama’s economic policies are misguided here, I am only saying Mitt and Newt are the ones who can best make that argument if its appropriate in 2011. I would also not discount Mike Huckabee’s ability to make such an argument well while adding some clever populist spin. Huckabee seems more skilled at explaining such things in ways that appeal to regular folks than do Gingrich or Romney.

  • Steve in KC

    I don’t think you can put a soulless war criminal/mass murderer like Cheney in the same category as Biden and Gingrich. The man is clearly not intelligent. His actions have cost us the respect of the world — and doubtless have fomented an increase in terrorism.

    I don’t disagree the appeal Gingrich may have as second banana (in a very literal sense) on what it appears the Repubs may put forth in 2012.

  • Mark-NC

    I have to say that Gingrich is a perfect Republican pick in today’s world. Cheated on his first wife and dumped her. Cheated on his second wife and dumped her too. Got run our of the House over ethics charges, and was known for his absolutely nasty politics.

    He’s a perfect Republican leader! Morals and values all the way.

    Of course, Palin quit her job – that puts her high on the list as well!

  • Weary

    These posts crack me up. Like the Democrats are so pure, ethical, moral, etc. Hah! Take your entitlement glasses off and the thumb out of your mouth. They all work together, eat together, and play hard at keeping us divided and finger pointing to the other side. They are lawyers, almost all of them. Some things never change. Idiocracy America has arrived.

  • Greg

    So Mitt Romney wins the Florida primary after totally out spending his rivals. Then with victory secured he comes out with a comment like ‘I’m not concerned about the very poor’

    It is so true when they say that “a fool and his money are soon elected.”

    In order for the office of President Of The United States to regain any kind of credibility there should immediately be a cap on how much any individual can spend during an election campaign.