PDA

View Full Version : A bipartisan call to draft Newt Gingrich



-Cp
01-31-2008, 10:13 PM
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=59971

If the primary season reveals no decisive front-runner, and if conservative delegates head toward the GOP convention with the nagging feeling that our best candidate wasn't in the race, we urge them to consider acting on what so many Republicans and Reagan Democrats are thinking. Drafting Newt Gingrich is a real solution to the current leadership problem. Even as a vice presidential choice, Gingrich would solidify the ranks and reinforce the GOP's position as the party of bold ideas, but as a presidential choice he could bring about a truly needed Second Reagan Revolution.

While the Democrats argue over campaign process but have little to contribute other than their usual 1960s "cultural revolution" and "old government" top-down dictates, there is one man who has not hesitated to be genuinely forward thinking. Not only is Newt Gingrich making impressive proposals at American Solutions.com that could unite the country in some positive ways, his track record in Congress during the 1980s and '90s can leave little doubt that Reaganism would get new life in a Gingrich White House.

Of course, the Reagan '80s are long gone, but as Gingrich recently told Rush Limbaugh, Reaganism itself is "not only not over, it is timeless, it is enduring and it is the core organizing principles for a successful country." To that, traditional Americans emphatically say, Amen.

As we approach the 25th anniversary of President Reagan's famous anti-Soviet "evil empire" speech, it's a good time to point out that Reagan also cautioned us against overreaching government power here in the United States, especially in its modern secular form. Still with us today, federal secularism back in 1983 had even then long since rejected what Christian Americans including Reagan called "the rule of law under God."

"Now, I don't have to tell you," Reagan told the National Association of Evangelicals, "that this puts us in opposition to, or at least out of step with, a prevailing attitude of many who have turned to a modern-day secularism, discarding the tried and time-tested values upon which our very civilization is based. No matter how well intentioned, their value system is radically different from that of most Americans. And while they proclaim that they're freeing us from superstitions of the past, they've taken upon themselves the job of superintending us by government rule and regulation."

Sound familiar? Just listen to the Democrat candidates – listen past the warm and fuzzy rhetoric and you'll hear the words, "government rule and regulation." Make no mistake, Ronald Reagan's struggle continues. There's a reason why a prominent conservative like Sean Hannity increasingly asks his national radio and television audience to consider a simple question – "What would Reagan do?" – and why Heritage Foundation has joined him in that effort. There's a reason Rush Limbaugh reinforces Reaganism at every opportunity. It's about America, and who we really are as a people in relation to the government we created.

As speaker of the House, and for his entire political career, Newt Gingrich has faithfully resisted what Reagan called "the cult of the state." He shares Reagan's staunch belief in the creativity of individual Americans and in our innate ability as a free people to come up with solutions that secular government bureaucracy couldn't even see much less implement. This unwavering "under God" Americanism is a key to understanding both men.

No, Reaganism itself will never die, and Newt Gingrich is the man who most represents those core conservative principles, not only in his original thinking, but in his political track record, and most importantly in his irrepressible determination to act out those "tried and time-tested values" with real solutions for 21st century America. Traditional Democrats and Republicans are looking for someone who "gets it." We believe that man is Newt Gingrich of Georgia.

Gaffer
01-31-2008, 10:47 PM
I could handle Newt being drafted. He's got more common sense then all the others put together.

retiredman
01-31-2008, 10:57 PM
I'd love to see the list of "traditional democrats" who are calling for a draft Newt movement. bipartisan my ass.

and I would LOVE it if the party that called for returning morality back to the white house in 2000 would turn around and run an intern-fucking serial adulterer as their nominee!

my guess is, any "traditional democrats" calling for Newt are doing so for the comic value of it alone!

manu1959
01-31-2008, 10:58 PM
I'd love to see the list of traditional democrats who are calling for a draft Newt movement. bipartisan my ass.:laugh2:

would you vote for newt or O'hillary?

retiredman
01-31-2008, 11:02 PM
would you vote for newt or O'hillary?

I would vote for Hillary before I would vote for ANY republican.... except maybe Bill Richardson...oh wait...he's not a republican! :laugh2:

stephanie
01-31-2008, 11:08 PM
I'd love to see the list of "traditional democrats" who are calling for a draft Newt movement. bipartisan my ass.

and I would LOVE it if the party that called for returning morality back to the white house in 2000 would turn around and run an intern-fucking serial adulterer as their nominee!

my guess is, any "traditional democrats" calling for Newt are doing so for the comic value of it alone!

Why should Newts serial adulterer make any difference now...

You all are voting to put one back in the whitehouse, his title will be........The First Hound dog.....:laugh2:

retiredman
01-31-2008, 11:15 PM
Why should Newts serial adulterer make any difference now...

You all are voting to put one back in the whitehouse, his title will be........The First Hound dog.....:laugh2:

hey...go for it Steph.... put Newt at the top of the ticket and see if he isn't smeared with his cumstained sexual past 24/7. I dare ya!

Pale Rider
01-31-2008, 11:38 PM
I'd vote for Newt in heart beat over any one of the four left.

Pale Rider
01-31-2008, 11:40 PM
hey...go for it Steph.... put Newt at the top of the ticket and see if he isn't smeared with his cumstained sexual past 24/7. I dare ya!

What possibly could be the difference between Newt and the sexual predator bubba clinton, besides the fact that clinton molested and raped multiple women and Newt didn't?

Oh yeah.... I'm so sure the clintons would that about them plastered all over the TV day and night too... what goes around comes around. They'd be the first ones telling their party to shut the fuck up about it.

Yurt
02-01-2008, 12:48 AM
I would vote for Hillary before I would vote for ANY republican.... except maybe Bill Richardson...oh wait...he's not a republican! :laugh2:

don't quit your day job.....

PostmodernProphet
02-01-2008, 06:16 AM
What possibly could be the difference between Newt and the sexual predator bubba clinton, besides the fact that clinton molested and raped multiple women and Newt didn't?

one big difference is that Newt didn't perjure himself in a court of law and get impeached because of it........

retiredman
02-01-2008, 09:28 AM
What possibly could be the difference between Newt and the sexual predator bubba clinton, besides the fact that clinton molested and raped multiple women and Newt didn't?

Oh yeah.... I'm so sure the clintons would that about them plastered all over the TV day and night too... what goes around comes around. They'd be the first ones telling their party to shut the fuck up about it.

we aren't talking about Bill Clinton running for president any more.

we are talking about the party that prided itself on moral rectitude (ooh is THAT a word with double entendre written all over it?!) nominating an intern fucking serial adulterer.

and that would be a hoot!

PostmodernProphet
02-01-2008, 09:56 AM
we are talking about the party that prided itself on moral rectitude

I have to admit that is a point....it must be comforting to belong to a party that never cumbered itself with a committment to moral rectitude.....

Joe Steel
02-01-2008, 10:46 AM
Despite being from a military family, Gingrich dodged the draft during the Vietnam era.

gabosaurus
02-01-2008, 11:40 AM
You can't be serious. Newt is entirely void of moral character. Libs and traditional Dems loathe Newt. He is an ethical nightmare.

avatar4321
02-01-2008, 11:42 AM
newts through. Let him do what he can where he can. but he wont be President. He wont win if we nominate him. and honestly he has been saying alot of stuff that is sounding more and more liberal.

retiredman
02-01-2008, 01:26 PM
I have to admit that is a point....it must be comforting to belong to a party that never cumbered itself with a committment to moral rectitude.....

that is incorrect, we just never committed ourselves to legislating it.

PostmodernProphet
02-01-2008, 01:32 PM
that is incorrect, we just never committed ourselves to legislating it.

let alone exercising it.....

5stringJeff
02-01-2008, 03:07 PM
I'd vote for Newt any day.

Abbey Marie
02-01-2008, 03:11 PM
I'd love to see the list of "traditional democrats" who are calling for a draft Newt movement. bipartisan my ass.

and I would LOVE it if the party that called for returning morality back to the white house in 2000 would turn around and run an intern-fucking serial adulterer as their nominee!
my guess is, any "traditional democrats" calling for Newt are doing so for the comic value of it alone!

Or how about the lying wife of an intern-f'ing serial adulterer?

retiredman
02-01-2008, 03:22 PM
Or how about the lying wife of an intern-f'ing serial adulterer?

I think you are spewing bullshit about the "lying" part and the rest will only serve to gain her sympathy from those "stand by yer man" housewives!

and in any case, the democratic party has never ran for the white house by attacking the sexual morality of a two term republican.... it is the hypocrisy of a Newt nomination that is SO delicious!

retiredman
02-01-2008, 03:23 PM
let alone exercising it.....

I know many democrats who exercise it...I know many republicans who DON'T yet feel quite comfortable legislating it for others....the man who is the subject of this thread is their poster-boy.

gabosaurus
02-01-2008, 03:27 PM
Newt is the GOP Bill Clinton.

Abbey Marie
02-01-2008, 03:29 PM
I think you are spewing bullshit about the "lying" part and the rest will only serve to gain her sympathy from those "stand by yer man" housewives!

and in any case, the democratic party has never ran for the white house by attacking the sexual morality of a two term republican.... it is the hypocrisy of a Newt nomination that is SO delicious!

Sorry chief, but when she sat in front of that camera, and said "He didn't have an affair, it's all just a right wing conspircay" she showed herself for the filthy liar we all know and loathe.

retiredman
02-01-2008, 03:44 PM
Sorry chief, but when she sat in front of that camera, and said "He didn't have an affair, it's all just a right wing conspircay" she showed herself for the filthy liar we all know and loathe.


and you know that she knew about it at that time? how prescient of you!

:laugh2:

and I'm curious, when she is inaugurated, will you MOVE?

Sir Evil
02-01-2008, 03:50 PM
Sorry chief, but when she sat in front of that camera, and said "He didn't have an affair, it's all just a right wing conspircay" she showed herself for the filthy liar we all know and loathe.

Just the norm from that camp.

Pale Rider
02-01-2008, 04:40 PM
and you know that she knew about it at that time? how prescient of you!

:laugh2:

and I'm curious, when she is inaugurated, will you MOVE?

Of course she did, right along with all the others prior. She's with bubba the sex addict and adulterer for her own political gain. You know and I know it, and that doesn't get Newt off the hook either. But if I had to pick between the two, guess who.

retiredman
02-01-2008, 06:34 PM
Of course she did, right along with all the others prior. She's with bubba the sex addict and adulterer for her own political gain. You know and I know it, and that doesn't get Newt off the hook either. But if I had to pick between the two, guess who.

the democrats do not show any blatant hypocrisy by nominating Hillary.

The republicans DO by nominating Newt.

Wearing the label, "Party of Hypocrisy" could not only lose you the white house but tons of congressional seats as well.

PostmodernProphet
02-01-2008, 06:43 PM
the democrats do not show any blatant hypocrisy by nominating Hillary.

The republicans DO by nominating Newt.

Wearing the label, "Party of Hypocrisy" could not only lose you the white house but tons of congressional seats as well.

I know....it's so unfair.....when the Democrats wear it, nobody gives a crap.....

Abbey Marie
02-04-2008, 11:27 AM
and you know that she knew about it at that time? how prescient of you!

:laugh2:

and I'm curious, when she is inaugurated, will you MOVE?

Good old common sense and paying attention is all one needs to see Hillary for the liar she is. It takes complete denial or stupidity to believe that she didn't know about all of the affairs, gropings, sexual harassments, etc.

As for moving, only loser cut-and-run Dems (right Babs?) that threaten to move out of the country when they don't get their way. We conservatives are the types to stay and fight until we win.
Gee, that does sound familiar. :laugh2:

GW in Ohio
02-04-2008, 11:38 AM
It's an indication of how fractured and unhappy the Republicans are that they're talking about drafting a highly-questionable guy like Newt Gingrich at this late date.

The buzz over Fred Thompson was another indication that GOPers are just not happy with their choices.

If either McCain or Romney is the nominee...and it will be one or the other.....many Republicans will not bother to vote in November.

The only thing that would bring them out is if the Dems nominate Hillary.