Prepping for 2012, Newt Gingrich Dusts Off His Old Playbook

The most qualified man to run for President in 2012 is the current Defense Secretary- Robert Gates. He has the most executive experience as former CIA Durector, Deputy Natioanl Security Adviser, former President of the University of Texas A&M and now the current Defense Secretary under Bush and Obama. He has no "personal and political baggage" and a very humble and frugal man- an anti-thesis to the arrogant, egotistic and high spending Obama! Read more about Robert Gates in the current issue of Newsweek Magazine and about his resume and you will be very impressed. He does things for the good of the country and not for political reasons. Trul, the best man to lead the USA in 2012 and get rid of Obama for good!

I don't want a republican or democrat for president next time. I want an American with vision and capability.

Well 'YO', while any lawmaker can have anything inserted into a bill, that bill still has to be voted on by both the House and the Senate. And while there is the urban myth that "no one reads what's in legislation", that not true. You better beleive that any member of Congress worth their salt has staff combing each piece of legislation to either protect their sacread cows, or to attack their political opponents. And as far as the democrats "controling the Senate", is should be clear that without 60 secure votes, most legislation is subject to a filibuster. And it takes even more to override a Presidental VETO. And you are wrong in your "
The President only signs stuff into law, uses the VETO..." statement. Just go back and track the changes in tax and budget policy over the past 30 years. It clearly moves in different directions based on who is President at the time.

This is a reply to sysaphus71...No omission on my part, but your point is moot. The surplus existed due to the fiscal policies of the Clintion Administration. And John Kasick couldn't have "directed the tresury to pay down the debt..." of his own personal accord, the system doesn't work that way. The economic policies of President Clinton moved us from deficits and ever increasing debt to a surplus and reduction in the debt. His policies also assisted on creating over 22 million jobs. Within six months of George W Bush getting his tax cut's we were back in the red, with negitive job production over 8 years, and the massive recession starting in late 2008 as his final "gift" from GOP economic policies.

The left would welcome Newt as a candidate against Obama. Newt, Palin, Romney, all appeal to a very small minority of voters which will cause defeat of the GOP in a general election. Pawlenty is probably the one with the best chance against Obama at this point. Huckabee is interesting but I don't know if he's electable. Time will tell. Many things can happen prior to the 2012 vote.

Lets consider some facts, GOP ideas have failed. W had 8 yesrs to "win" in Afghanistan but he didn't due to war choices his adminstration made. Has President Obama increased troops and refocused our efforts there? YES! Has he authorized a substancial increase in drone missle attacks on Al Qaeda and their allies in Pakistan? YES! Newt Gingrich is a professional political con man. On economics, the GOP has failed. Income of the middle class has been stagnant or dropping since 2000. The severe 2 year economic recession we are trying to pull out of is due to failed GOP policies. To anyone who wants to complain about the massive national debt, our nation was running a surplus at the end of the Clinton Administration and paying down the Debt. It's was only after W got his tax cuts (that primarily targeted the top 3 percent) did the deficits and increasing debt return. Support for the GOP is support for failed ideas.

Mr. Corn, I noticed that you decry Gingrich for his partisan comments, yet your entire article is filled with slights toward Gingrich and the republicans. Your point about President Obama sending 30,000 troops does rebuke Gingrich's comments about his administration being wimps, but he did not charge them with treason. Again, another example of inflated rhetoric, exactly what you are criticizing Gingrich for. I do agree that the GOP wasted time and taxpayer money on the Clinton investigation, unfortuantely this has been a way of politics as far back as the 1800's. In your criticism of the ill-advised Clinton investigations, you refer to the important topics of the day being ignored such as fossil fuel dependency, flat wages and a troubled health care system. Funny that you do not criticize the current President for wasting time on the "View" while our Country faces the worst ecological disaster in our time, the worst month for US troop casulties, the highest unemployment in decades, ongoing dependency of fossil fuel and numerous other issues.
How about you be one of the lights of non-partisan reporting. Articles like these are the reasons that the media suffers as nearly as poor approval ratings as does our Congress. Note that I did not say the right wing conservative or the liberal democrats in Congress. Shame on you. Your article should be in the National Enquire.

Mr Corn apparently refuses to realize that MILLIONS of Americans KNOW that this president IS dangerous to the American way of life. Hyperbole or not.....Gingrich is correct. As an american history professor he knows what made America strong.

The Newt will never be President of the United States. Nor Palin, Romney, Bush, McCain. Thank you, thank you very much.

No one I know will vote for this guy..... That leaves me with NO ONE to vote for...
The republicans MUST come up with someone to vote for.....HELP!!!!!!