Home > Political Insider > Archives > 2007 > August > 06 > Entry
DEL.ICIO.USSays Newt: ‘Odds are significant’ the Democrats win the White House
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
If you’re a betting man, you have to like Democrats’ chances of taking over the White House next year, former House Speaker Newt Gingrich said early this morning.
“The odds are fairly significant that that the left will win next year. My personal bet is that it’ll be a Clinton-Obama ticket. I think they have a very high likelihood of winning,” Gingrich told business leaders at a gathering of the Cobb County Chamber of Commerce.
This from a fellow who, just three months ago, was fending off scores of when-will-you-announce questions about his own presidential aspirations. Gingrich didn’t address the question directly on Monday.
But politicians chomping at the bit to run have three things in common: A slimmed-down figure, a tan suitable for TV cameras, and well-coiffed hair. Maybe not John Edwards-style hair, but well-barbered nonetheless.
Perhaps it was the 7 a.m. hour, but Gingrich had none of these. He was, however, very sober when it came to the GOP dilemma. Here’s a five-minute sound clip with many of his comments. The pen-scratching you hear is my fault.
As more Republicans are doing, Gingrich pinned much of the blame on the current occupant of 1600 Pennsylvania Ave.
“The problem you have right now is that the party and movement that best understands reality have not delivered on fundamental change. And the election of 2006 was in essence a punishment to Republicans — it was a performance election, not a values election,” the former Georgia congressman said.
“The Republican challenge is, until they get past being Bush, they have an enormous difficulty in getting people to open their minds. Six months ago in the polling numbers, [Republican Rudy] Giuliani was ahead of [Hillary] Clinton. He is now behind. He’s the strongest Republican in terms of popular vote, whether you’re for him or against him,” Gingrich said.
The Republican strategist singled out what he called President Bush’s inability to communicate with the public about Iraq.
“We cannot get him to master the art that Reagan had and that Lincoln had, of talking to the American people in a form in which they are comfortable,” Gingrich said.
“So my first advice to the President was, ‘Don’t say anything anymore. Keep quiet.’ Let General [David] Petraeus and [Iraq] Ambassador [Ryan] Crocker to speak for the country.’
“And then the Democrats in Congress have to decide are General Clinton and General Reid and General Pelosi really more knowledgeable than General Petraeus. It’s very hard to go to the country and say I’m going to abandon the Americans in Iraq. It’s very easy to go to the country and say George W. Bush is wrong.”
Gingrich said the proper thing to do is to share the burden of Iraq with Democrats. “First thing I’d do is make it their problem,” he said, by risking the leaks and offering full, weekly briefings to Congress.
All that said, Gingrich left himself an escape hatch.
“Anybody who thinks anything is decided completely misunderstands how fluid this country is. And everything I just said could change dramatically by September or October of next year, if you have the Republicans take the right strategy, or if the Democrats fail to take the right strategy,” he said.
And about these whispers of a third-party ticket that pairs New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg with former U.S. senator Sam Nunn of Georgia: Gingrich said he saw no way for it to succeed.
“It’s a little hard for me to imagine Nunn doing something as radical as running on a third-party ticket,” Gingrich said.
Comments
Commenting is now closed for this entry.
By Keon
August 6, 2007 11:56 AM | Link to this
Republicans are royally screwed unless the situation in Iraq DRAMATICALLY changes for the better and the troops come home or unless the Democrats trip at the finish line..
By Howard
August 6, 2007 6:42 PM | Link to this
Gingrich is so full of it…what the hell did his “Contract with America” accomplish?? He’s just popping his fat mouth off in order to start a groundswell of people clammering for him to run for President and save them from Hillary!!! How do you trust the words of a man who commits adultery with his cancer stricken wife?? Hasn’t Gingrich ever heard of the “Senator jinx” when it comes to Presidential elections?? Not since Kennedy has a US Senator won a Presidential election…and it ain’t gonna happen in 2008. And I dispute that idiot traitor Gingrich about Hillary choosing Obama…she doesn’t want him..why?? She’ll get the black vote anyway, so why choose an up and coming guy who will only steal from her spotlight?? Bill will be VP anyway…no, she’ll choose someone moderate to attract voters who get mad at the GOP choice and pout and want to sit out the election. Newt Gingrich needs to keep writing his books and keep his big mouth shut!!! Or better yet…go back and review the Ten Commandments about “adultery.”
By duke
August 6, 2007 10:44 PM | Link to this
The main issue is internationalism. Both parties intend to subvert U. S. sovereignty under a new international world order. Since Newt Gingrich is an internationalist, there is no reason for me to vote for him. And for internationalist voters, Sam Nunn is more of an internationalist than Gingrich could ever hope to be. So the Republicans lose. We have no business in Iraq. Bush is advancing the new world order, not defending the U. S. against terror. He doesn’t guard the border. Homeland Security should be building fallout shelters for American families, but instead they are prosecuting Border Patrol Agents who do their job with appropriate aggressiveness. Google “Ramos and Compean”, without quotes. worldnetdaily.com has some good coverage about the persecution of those two BP agents. Bush is totally deaf about their case. Gingrich is right that energy independence is a very high priority. But he believes the global warming nonsense. If the global warming theory were true, we would have to shut down the Industrial Revolution. The only remaining viable energy source would be nuclear power.
By duke
August 6, 2007 10:51 PM | Link to this
I just saw an article about a trillion dollar shortfall in funds necessary to maintain American infrastructure. Bush has no feeling at all for this problem. He is running the Army into the ground, and not spending the money to repair and replace aging machinery. We are headed for a total collapse of the dollar, and Sam Nunn’s gang will be ready with to replace it with their North American currency. They already have a name for it- the Amero. They will equalize living conditions between the U. S. and Mexico by making the U. S. like Mexico.
By Nunn4Prez
August 7, 2007 12:05 AM | Link to this
Please run Senator Nunn! There would be a man I could vote for!
By RL
August 7, 2007 8:57 AM | Link to this
I agree… maybe Nunn should run but he will not. Too bad really. Maybe an AWSOME secretary of defense or even state in the coming Dem adimn.
By concerned citizen
August 7, 2007 9:59 AM | Link to this
Thanks, duke, for bringing up internationalism. The Council on Foreign Relations is an organization working to bring about the North American Union (of Canada, the US, and Mexico) and its new currency, the Amero, by 2010. Who’s in the CFR? Newt, Sam Nunn, Fred Thompson, Rudy Giuliani, Mitt Romney, John McCain, Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, and John Edwards. Notice that all of these candidates happen to be the media darlings!! Which Presidential candidate is fighting to restore America’s sovereignty and constitutional principles, despite being ignored by the media? Congressman Ron Paul! Check him out! www.ronpaul2008.com. By the way, phony Newt supported Ron Paul’s Democratic opponent in Congress when Newt was the Speaker of the House. What does that tell you??
By dick
August 7, 2007 10:55 AM | Link to this
Stuff it, Newt.
By BPJ
August 8, 2007 9:55 AM | Link to this
There are two Newt Gingrich’s: the thoughtful analyst, and the partisan hack phrasemaker. Both are on display in the interview. Most of his analysis is good; then there is the phoney baloney setting up General Petraeus v. “General Pelosi” et al. Great rhetoric, but misleading as usual. It was well rebutted by General Wesley Clark recently:
What [President Bush and his administration] want to talk about is troops. They want to say they support our troops, and if we question the numbers of troops or their effectiveness, they want to say, ‘You people don’t support our troops. If you don’t support our troops then you’re not patriotic, and if you’re not patriotic, then you don’t have a voice.’ I mean, that’s what leaks out from everybody from Undersecretary Edelman and Vice President Cheney all the way down in every dialog.
When we argue about troops, what we’re doing is we’re playing on George Bush’s home court. That’s what he likes. Now, I’m not up here saying, ‘Okay, let’s go play on his court. Let’s say he’s only put 170,000 troops. The Democrats, we should put 270,000 troops in.’ Listen, I would’ve done it if I’d had it at the beginning. I wouldn’t have gone into the mission, but having the decision been made, it was clear we didn’t, we’ve never had enough troops to do the job. But you’re not going to change the policy by arguing about the troop strength. We’ve done it. We’re on record. We want the troops home, but may I suggest that if we can raise the dialogue, take it away from George Bush’s safe ground of troops and people in uniform and ‘How dare you question these Generals and these people in uniform that are so patriotic,’ and say, ‘No, we’re not questioning the Generals. Mr. President, we are questioning YOU, your administration, your leadership!’
I want you to say to President Bush, ‘Mr. President, stop hiding behind Dave Petraeus and come out here and defend YOUR strategy! This is your war. You defend it.’
I mean, I’ve been there in uniform, and when your boss tells you, ‘Go in there and do the best you can,’ you do the best you can, and you try to make it work. And that’s what Dave Petraeus is doing, but you can’t win it with what Dave Petraeus is doing. The only person who can make a difference is the person who controls the overall strategy in the region.
By Ken Smith
August 8, 2007 5:57 PM | Link to this
The British won the war against Islamic Terrorists in India long ago when they used the Islamic religious teaching against them. They began dipping their bullets in pig’s blood. If a Muslim is contaminated by pig’s blood he will go to hell when he dies according to their Qur’an. I am sure that the concept would find other forms of use as well. It is far past time for us to get real about winning this 3rd world war. Ken Smith, Age 75 www.Trinity-Aloha.org