Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
How Would You Feel About Newt?
Published in General
I guess I contradicted myself in comments 15 and 16.
I agree there are important things a speaker can do — like everyone else here, I’m incensed at the lack of forced vetoes — but I think they all pale in comparison to what a Republican president can do, which is why I’m not interested in spending a lot of political capital on this fight.
But I think I can be persuaded. Shoot.
Personally I’d support it but the media will report it as an act of desperation, which to some degree it is. Frankly I think Paul Ryan needs to step up here.
Edit: Just read Tom’s comments, and he’s right. Let’s move on. Paul Ryan has to either take the Speakership himself or step up and direct the caucus to an acceptable person. Who that might be (other than Ryan himself) I don’t have a clue.
My initial reaction to this proposal was YIPPIE! For all of the wrong reasons.
I liked the idea of Newt as speaker because I anticipate he would use his position to call out Obama on the foreseeable consequences his disastrous administration–which would be great fun. But political spite is a pretty poor basis for picking the next Speaker of the House.
That said, I think at this point Ryan is the next best choice. But Ryan has already declined. After you get past Ryan then the bench is rather thin. Once Ryan is no longer an option we then enter a zone where all of the alternatives have real problems. Including Newt, as Tom Myers pointed out in #27.
If Ryan cannot be persuaded to run for the Speakership then I’d say that Newt would be a suitable alternative. Not desirable, but we can live with it.
Tom Myers is correct that Newt would energize the Left. We do not want the Left to have energy.
Another problem with Newt: his hand is always 6 inches from the self-destruct button. That should keep the evening news interesting.
It is not for nothing that Newt was removed as speaker. I want to think the Newt has reflected on the mistakes he made as Speaker the last time around and avoid them. Of course this just means that Newt would make different mistakes this time around.
Potential irony alert: John Boehner’s anti-Newt activism in 1997 contributed to Newt being ejected as Speaker in 1998. If Newt does succeed John Boehner then Newt will be replacing, as Speaker, one of the players who worked to get Newt out of the Speakership.
Correct if I’m wrong, but wasn’t Ryan a VP candidate? If so, him as Speaker puts him 2 heartbeats from the White House…..
We tend to misremember Newt’s downfall as a result of his delusions of grandeur when the real trouble was his delusions of competence. Running the House on a daily basis is hard, thankless work. It takes a steady hand to keep most of the drama queens in the caucus going in more or less the same direction. Gingrich simply isn’t cut out for the role. He’s an idea guy, not an institution guy.
And even as an idea guy, Gingrich’s flashes of genius come too far apart for day-to-day politics. He belongs in a think tank.
Good idea.
I’d ratherfocus on winning the presidency. There’snotmuch a good speaker can do at the moment. Newt would be a big gamble forlittlepotential gain.Notworth it.Claire,
I like Newt but I would prefer Cromwell.
Regards,
Jim
The last time a Republican House Speaker did a really good job, it was Newt. Newt ran one-third of the triumvirate that is the White House, the Senate, and the House. Newt got what he went after and it worked in our favor. Big time.
Now if the naysayers would tell us how they would do it?
I did vote for Newt when he ran for president. I did not hold his past indiscretions against him. I enjoyed watching every debate (or sound bite opportunity) he was involved in. I loved listening to him turn the tables on his interlocutors.
I believe that he would turn the tables on Barry, very publicly and very convincingly.
Now if the naysayers would tell us how they would do it?
What were those? Can you name them? Are they anything that would bother a Democrat’s chances?
The question is easy: why didn’t Clinton resign?
And then: Was Newt worse?
RINOs are congenital losers. Always have been, always will be.
Yes, you have the MSM talking points down very well.
This is to say the least unkind. Do you have any evidence that the man eats up or spits out MSM talking points?
I think these questions are worth asking, but I do not see much change coming that way. The two parties really are different & differently positioned when it comes to the voting public. If it’s a matter of votes, Mr. Clinton was reelected, but the GOP lost seats in 1998 & 1996 (except in the Senate, which I presume has nothing to do with Mr. Gingrich or any other Speaker).
I worry that Newt might not have the energy to do this work full time. I want him to enjoy his semi-retirement and live a long time. I do hope that some of the candidates consult with him. He should get some recognition for what a revolutionary man he was and we should be grateful that he came along after Reagan and motivated the Republicans.
That said, if he wanted to do it — I would trust his judgment on whether he could handle the job. It’s just a transitional period and it’s crucial we have someone who is as seasoned and thoughtful as he is.
I was there in the 1990s — I remember who came up with each talking point as they happened in real time. The same people who were so worried about Duane’s talking points were completely OK with Clinton not being forced out.
Duane! I thought you’d left us once and for all. Nice to have you back.
Oh, I have no problem asking any one how they feel about Mr. Clinton. If you want my answer, I do not believe he should have resigned when impeachment came about. I feel rather more strongly about impeachment for national security matters to do with nuclear technology & China earlier, but frankly I would not have favored impeachment in that case either–not unless there was serious political support. I take the coward’s road in such matters.
But that is all to one side–the man deserves being asked the same question as anyone else, not presumption that he’s no better than a Clinton hack or a Mr. Stephanopoulos.
Kevin McCarthy has always been an Establican stooge; quite a stark contrast to an accomplished revolutionary like Newt Gingrich.
I am fascinated by the idea of a non-elected person being Speaker, but I can’t believe this wouldn’t cause a constitutional crisis were something to happen to the President and Veep. Surely there would be some outcry in the speaker assuming the Presidency if he wasn’t even an elected member of Congress.
Anything that makes the left’s collective heads explode is fine by me.
Says the first place team owner to the last place team owner. This week, since the Vikings are on a bye, I literally had to bench my entire team and field pick-up guys.
The question at the time, since it was obvious from day 1 that there would not be the 2/3 senate majority to vote out Clinton, was how to punish him for deserving impeachment and removal from office in the real world. I was for impeachment at the time, I probability should have supported censure, since the sympathy vote in 1998 caused our side to lose several Senate seats.
The problem with Newt and Newt’s supporters is that they mistake the thrill and satisfaction of him dressing down some reporter (Speaking Truth To Power!) with actually accomplishing something. Newt was a polarizing spokesperson- sort of like Kevin McCarthy, where he spoke first and thought through the possible impacts of the statement after the fact. The hyperpolitical first instinct.
Newt is an OK policy guy except for health care (where he bought into the “prevention” mythos of ObamaCare because he didn’t understand health care very well)- but he is not who we need right now as the public face.
Great comment, new Troy–you’re on fire!
Newt can be very good at times, but he has a tendency to self puffery that gets him in trouble. If I had a vote in the matter I would vote no, unless his service would be for a short while, say until after the next election.
Cheney isn’t healthy enough. Gingrich’s age has enhanced his lack of focus.
I, on the other hand, am entirely willing to be the Speaker of the House. I’m Conservative, not trapped by PC-ness, and being as unknown as I am, I can pass Congressman Walter Jones’ (R, NC) hatchet job/skeletons letter.
Eric Hines
Interesting point. Think we could get Netanyahu?
It’s a bit late in the game…
Newt can save this party and this country. He’s the smartest politician in Washington D.C. and should have been elected president. His huge ego is his worst enemy, not to mention the establishment Republicans.
I’d be cool with it. Honestly.
Do I expect anything better?
ok, that might be taking it a little too far. But I’d be ok with him as speaker.