Well, that about settles it, everyone
must be at YearlyKos, if
this one never got diaried today -- or at least, a search of the obvious tags didn't return anything.
Yes, according to the Washington Post, Newt Gingrich, no doubt emboldened by the results of the recent Minnesota straw poll, is leaning towards a run at the GOP ticket in 2008.
In remarks that were critical of both parties' recent performance, Gingrich told a luncheon group of scholars and reporters at the Brookings Institution that he will make a decision in the fall of 2007 about running.
"If at that point there's still a vacuum . . . then we'll probably do something," Gingrich said, adding that his policy pronouncements have more weight if he is seen as a potential presidential candidate. "If you're interested in defining the idea context and the political context for the next generation of Americans, which I am, the most effective way to do that is to be seen as potentially available."
More below.
Why do I posit, then, that he's 'leaning towards' running? I personally think there's a good chance of that 'vacuum'. I can't picture the GOP nominating McCain, reviled as he is by the party activists, and at the same time, I think the GOP still has more than enough sense to nominate someone like Frist, Brownback or Huckabee. What we've got in the GOP is an expanding schism -- which in and of itself is no news -- but that very well might result in someone like Gingrich climbing atop the pedestal. Note that I'm not saying that "A" will lead directly to "B" -- the vacuum could occur and surely someone else may step up. But I think the chance that there will be some sort of bloody power struggle within the GOP is likely.
What also strikes me as interesting in this article was the classification of Gingrich's partisanship -- or, how they like to phrase it....
Though he came to power as a fiery conservative, Gingrich has softened some of his partisanship since leaving office. He has criticized the current House leadership for cracking down on dissent, he appeared last year with Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) to back changes in how medical data are shared, and he supports federal funding for alterative energy sources.
No, I have no doubts that Newt is as partisan as ever, and I don't think anyone believe's he bleeds anything but GOP red. Really, it's more evidence of just how far right the Republicans have shifted -- and how much they've stifled dissent in the party, requiring lockstep obedience -- indeed, taking the "Reagan Commandment" as gospel. That his slightest criticism of the right lends to an appearance of non-partisanship in the Post's eyes is testament to how drunk with power the GOP has gotten.
The GOP is in a real predicament: They're either going to have to swallow their emmense pride and look to someone who's spoken harshly against fellow Republicans, or they're going to have to choose someone amongst their extremist ranks and expect to lose this election without some miraculous stroke of luck. Which of these is the more bitter medicine? I'm not part of the GOP, I don't know, but I still don't think McCain will be their solution given the first option. The party activists vote in the primaries, they didn't like McCain in 2000, and they like him even less now.
I have no doubts Newt, though jilted in '98, has friends in high places and keeps his finger on the party's political pulse. So could Newtie get the nomination? Would his past history, both political and social, taken as a whole, weigh as more of an asset or a liability given the ever expanding GOP turmoil?