Newt in 2008?

He's baaaaaaaaaack?

Published on January 9, 2005 By thatoneguyinslc In Politics

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

Comments (Page 3)

Dr Guy

on Jan 11, 2005

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

They say that here too!

thatoneguyinslc

on Jan 11, 2005

Not that Bill Myr

Bill Richardson.

drmiler

on Jan 11, 2005

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.

latour999

on Jan 11, 2005

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.

thatoneguyinslc

on Jan 11, 2005

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**)

Dr Guy

on Jan 12, 2005

(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.

latour999

on Jan 12, 2005

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.

Dr Guy

on Jan 13, 2005

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.

latour999

on Jan 13, 2005

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.

thatoneguyinslc

on Jan 14, 2005

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.

drmiler

on Jan 14, 2005

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.

Dr Guy

on Jan 14, 2005

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.

latour999

on Jan 14, 2005

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!

thatoneguyinslc

on Jan 14, 2005

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.

Dr Guy

on Jan 14, 2005

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.

Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:

Richer content, access to many features that are disabled for guests like commenting on the forums.
Access to a great community, with a massive database of many, many areas of interest.
Access to contests & subscription offers like exclusive emails.
It's simple, and FREE!