Newt Mulls a Run

Nick Gillespie | September 24, 2007

The would-be general of World War III is mulling a run for the GOP presidential nod:

Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich will begin next week to seek financial commitments from donors for a presidential-nomination bid, the Georgia Republican told The Washington Times yesterday.

If he can get pledges for $30 million over the next three weeks, he will join the Republican presidential-nomination race - a prospect he had been downplaying until yesterday.

But the prospect of Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York winning the Democratic nomination and the presidency is moving more voters to seek him out, he told The Times.

"As people have grown more worried about the Clinton machine and the prospect of a second Clinton presidency, more and more people have been approaching me about running," Mr. Gingrich said.

More here.

Given how things turned out the last time Newt challenged a Clinton, Republicans interested in winning the White House might think twice. As Dave Weigel noted in his profile of Sen. Tom Coburn, the Oklahoma senator has said: "After the shutdown...[Gingrich] was like a whipped dog who still barked, yet cowered, in Clinton's presence....It was a turning point. Afterwards you saw the growth of government accelerate. You saw the abandonment of the principles that we came in on in 1994. And you saw us become them."

Elsewhere, Newt shares a moment with Knut the polar bear. Newt's laff-fest Monday newsletter, delivered right to your inbox, here.

Comments

|9.24.07 @ 8:21AM|#

Newt has no chance.

His name is too stigmatized from the 90's, he will only appeal to the GOP base, and he seems about as cordial as warthog who was just kicked in the nuts.

|9.24.07 @ 8:28AM|#

I was under the impression that, in conservative parliance, the Cold War was World War III, and the War on Terror is WWIV.

World Wars V - VII would be the wars on Drugs, Secularism, and Immigration, respectively.

stephen the goldberger|9.24.07 @ 8:39AM|#

maybe he'll mix it up at least

|9.24.07 @ 8:50AM|#

Well, you can put me down for $30 million right now. Newt has more ego than all the rest of the candidates put together, and I for one would love to see General Newt and General Rudy go one on one. And how about Down Home Fred versus Down Home Newt?

SIV|9.24.07 @ 8:54AM|#

The WoDs actually began just before WWI.

|9.24.07 @ 8:58AM|#

Betfair has Gingrich @ 38 to 1 odds of winning the Republican nomination. (Ron Paul is listed @ 23 to 1).

I don't see the odds closing much if he actually joins the race, unless Benito makes a major gaffe and the Republicans need another candidate who does more than fill out a suit.

|9.24.07 @ 9:00AM|#

Isn't Newt the guy who divorced his first wife on her death-bed?

Also, read about why Newt prefers oral sex here

VM|9.24.07 @ 9:19AM|#

He and Dan Burton can run on the "LOOK OVER THERE!" ticket...

|9.24.07 @ 9:29AM|#

Will his theme song be Hot For Teacher?

|9.24.07 @ 9:30AM|#

Please run, Newt. Pretty please? Turn the GOP race into even more of a circus than it already is.

|9.24.07 @ 9:33AM|#

The GOP is going to lose the next election, and probably be the minority party in Congress for several election cycles.

Newt Gingrich, more than anyone else running, can do a Goldwater, and wage a tough, principled (if ultimately losing) campaign of ideas that could give the party faithful something to rally around through the coming years of darkness.

|9.24.07 @ 9:33AM|#

It was a turning point. Afterwards you saw the growth of government accelerate. You saw the abandonment of the principles that we came in on in 1994. And you saw us become them.

Cop out. BTW, Is Coburn blaming Newt or Bill with this statement?

|9.24.07 @ 10:25AM|#

Every once in a while, one of these posts will "light" me up with hilarity and put me on the floor laughing. This is one such post.

And it is because of this quote:

"After the shutdown...[Gingrich] was like a whipped dog who still barked, yet cowered, in Clinton's presence....It was a turning point. Afterwards you saw the growth of government accelerate. You saw the abandonment of the principles that we came in on in 1994. And you saw us become them."

As far as I can tell, the biggest growth in governments came in 1980-1992, while it slowed (but still grew, just not as fast) from '92 to 2000 and then catapulted like nothing ever seen on every front from 2000 to today.

Look, both democrats and republicans "grow" the government, but how long must we suffer, and the lie (and a lie that is easily provable) that republicans somehow favor small government or want to keep government out of our lives.

Believing republicans have anything in common with small government people is like believing in fairies.

You guys are becoming a better laugh than NRO was in the early 2000's.

Definitely not part of the reality based community.

I dream of a day that libertarians break the spell that causes them to not see that republicans back the biggest government possible.

|9.24.07 @ 10:43AM|#

Johnny -
umm... what did you smoke for breakfast?

|9.24.07 @ 1:57PM|#

I dream of a day that libertarians break the spell that causes them to not see that republicans back the biggest government possible.

I for one am not under that spell. There are only a tiny handful of GOP candidates with some chance to be on my national/state ballot next year that I would consider voting for.

But there is one reason why libertarians should continue working with the GOP. It's the only one of the two mainstream parties that still has a small government rhetoric. The leadership may not believe it while mouthing the words, but much of the rank and file does. Libertarians can choose to go crawl back in their shell and play act as a political party, as they have done for the last thirty years. Or they can choose to do something constructive, like joining the other two parties and making an attempt to slam the brakes.

|9.24.07 @ 8:57PM|#

But even the "small government" rhetoric the GOP does utilize is full of holes. On civil liberties, speech, restraint on the police power, spying and surveillance, and so many other spheres of government, they don't even rhetorically support smaller government, but openly brag about wanting larger government.

Is this really more in line with libertarian thinking than the rhetoric the Democrats use when discussing civil liberties, privacy, or opposition to the Imperial Presidency?