As most of you know, Newt Gingrich has been in contact with Fred Thompson, and Newt has now confirmed this. Some might ignore it, or brush it off, but a Gingrich endorsement still carries weight. See what former senator and GOP nominee Bob Dole had to say a couple of days ago, via Bloomberg:
Bob Dole says his preferred presidential candidate, Arizona Senator John McCain, is fading and that his support is likely to be “picked up” by Fred Thompson, who is expected to announce his candidacy for the Republican nomination in September.
It has been reported on every major news outlet that Gingrich has been aiding the Thompson team, and been involved with policy discussion. He is leaving the door open for his own possible run, but only if Thompson fails to hold his traction in the polls, according to earlier reports.
from ABC:
ABC News’ Tahman Bradley Reports: Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich R-Ga., confirmed that he and his wife Calista recently had dinner with Republican presidential-candidate-in-waiting Fred Thompson and his wife Jeri.
“Yes, we had a very nice dinner with Jerri and Fred?,” Gingrich said Sunday in an interview on Fox News.
Gingrich did not answer a question about whether he would endorse Thompson if and when the former Tennessee senator enters the race, but said he believes Thompson will be “a very formidable candidate” in a Republican presidential field that features several strong candidates.
Don’t forget that former Gingrich aide Rich Galen has signed on with Thompson as well. If the Thompson run fails, wanna take a wild guess where at least 20 of his 25% support goes? Here’s a thought…. it would split, with Gingrich picking up the southern loyalists and the majority, and the rest likely going back to Rudy Giuliani, unless he declares full out war with Thompson this early in the game, which would alienate the large number of staunch Thompson backers. Remember that it is Giuliani who has gone from near 40% to 24% since Fred spoke of a possible run, and it is quite likely much of that support would trend back, or to Newt. So in reality, Fred is a win-win situation for Rudy. Granted, Rudy has to fight off Thompson for the nomination, but if Thompson failed, he would be a beneficiary, along with Gingrich. And before you bring up all of Newt’s baggage, let me leave you with a quote from none other than Ronald Reagan, from Robert Novak’s fascinating autobiography, ‘The Prince of Darkness’:
“After my marriage (to Jane Wyman) broke up, Reagan said, I tried to go to bed with every starlet in Hollywood. [Reagan paused and smiled] And I damn near succeeded. That was before I met Nancy.”
- Robert Novak: The Prince of Darkness, p. 270
Gosh, where have I heard something that sounds very similar to that and is being scrutinized by some? Now, I not only bring this up to refer to the comments on Thompson’s trophy wife and bachelor life during the 1990′s. I bring this up because some have been quick to scrutinize the private lives of Rudy Giuliani and Newt Gingrich as well. Who are we to criticize failed marriages? Before anybody claims moral superiority, let’s remember who every candidate constantly likes to remind us of. Would you have been as judgemental of Reagan in 1980 if that quote was leaked to the press? If today’s media had covered politics back then and our candidates attacked each others personal lives, we probably would’ve had two terms of Jimmy the Peanut Carter, if 1980 had our partisan atmosphere. Maybe that’s something we should think about.
July 30th, 2007 at 10:42 pm
You’re right Tommy, since Reagen fornicated often it must be ok. After all he is the standard of all things moral.
July 30th, 2007 at 10:45 pm
Forget plain old fornication, Jason. Tommy’s suggesting that we don’t criticize the behavior of serial adulterers!
July 30th, 2007 at 10:47 pm
No, but by some of our commenters logic, you seem to want to let it automatically disqualify someone. “fornicate” that’s a real nice way of putting it. By my thinking, crucifying someone over their past personal discretions is NOT the way to win a campaign.
July 30th, 2007 at 10:49 pm
also, it’s not just you guys I’m talking about. There are some others.
July 30th, 2007 at 10:53 pm
However, I’m asking a legit and honest question. Would those of you who have been quick to criticize Thompson, Rudy, or Newt and their personal life have done the same to Reagan in 1980 if that quote had been reported? Honestly and straight forward without any attacks on any candidates, how would you have reacted? Every one of our candidates are openly embracing Reagan and his legacy. How would you react to that type of news being reported.
July 30th, 2007 at 10:54 pm
Tommy,
While I recall plenty of commenters (myself included, you apparently not) who count adultery as a major negative aspect in a potential nominee, I don’t recall anyone saying that they’d support Rudy (or Gingrich) if it weren’t for the adultery being a singularly disqualifying factor.
July 30th, 2007 at 10:56 pm
Yes, but Rudy and Gingrich have both been written off and slaughtered here before because of their personal baggage, and the MSM have had a field day with trophy Jeri. Would you have attacked Reagan in 1980?
July 30th, 2007 at 10:58 pm
Tommy,
I would not have written off Reagan for his fornication, but you can bet that I’d call a spade a spade. Likewise, I don’t rule out Rudy for his adultury, though you can bet I count it against him.
July 30th, 2007 at 10:59 pm
Tommy, also, I don’t frequent Brownie sites much, so take my #6 comments as only w/r/t this wonderful site.
July 30th, 2007 at 11:17 pm
What? Another non story about 2 non candidates who had dinner. My brother and I had dinner a few weeks ago, and neither of us have announced our candidacy.
Look, crap or get off the pot Thompson. I will say this though, Reagan and Thompson have this in common. They both flipped on abortion, though only Reagan (and Romney) would ever admit to it.
July 30th, 2007 at 11:21 pm
3 million aint much to some people, but its enough to gas up a big red pickup truck and drive to IA or NH. Get out of the basement, and off the computer writing an article or two a week, and go engage voters. Go tell them your a good old boy from the south, and say it with a drawl too so they believe you. That way they can see your a TN version of GWB, and “um” “ugh” “mmmmm” “ugh” they will be able to see that this is and should be a two horse race.
Rudy v Romney… Go Mitt.
July 30th, 2007 at 11:54 pm
Alright, could we please stop with the adultury prognostications here?
Anyone remember King David and God’s mercy for him?
Lay off, pharisees.
July 31st, 2007 at 1:01 am
Tommy, what is your beef with Blogs 4 Brownback?
July 31st, 2007 at 1:04 am
I couldn’t agree with you more, Husky.
I couldn’t disagree with you more, Husky.
Hey, now we’re even!
July 31st, 2007 at 1:14 am
I really can’t get into the mindset of someone who votes based on a candidate’s personal life unless it’s so outrageous that it will interfere with him doing his job (paging President Clinton…hey! Who’s that girl answering your pager?!).
July 31st, 2007 at 2:56 am
wouldn’t it be something if Fred fizzles out or doesn’t run or his campaign just never really takes off for whatever reason, Iraq gets better, security and terrorism continue to be important, immigration fades as time goes on, the South and the big states never really take to Mitt, Rudy remains pro choice, and in the end the party coalesces around the crusty old veteran/war hero with inspiring story who was steadfast on Iraq and the President?
or is that just too out there?
July 31st, 2007 at 2:57 am
I think how someone lives their personal life is important, especially for someone like a politician, who is charged with a sacred duty by the people that elected him/her to “represent” the people and set an example by honoring the law. It’s actually illegal to adulter in some states, and even if not enforced, it represents a violation of personal vows and infidelity to a promise. If a candidate has been unfaithful to a spouse, thinking little of solemn vows in their personals lives, shouldn’t that have at least some bearing in our opinion of how they will honor vows they make to people that aren’t as close to them as a spouse would be (We the people)?
OK, so what if marriage doesn’t work out. Tommy Oliver pointed out before on this site that people change, circumstances change, whatever. I should mention that I believe that divorce should only happen under the most dire of circumstances, when all reconciliation efforts have been tried and failed, and as a last resort. Divorce hurts America, it hurts families, it causes in many cases permanent psychological damage on children. Parents should carefully consider the effects of their actions on their children. We already know that Guiliani, for example, has permanently damaged the relationship he had with his two children, Andrew and Caroline. What a sad tale, but one so increasingly common in America.
But again, after all else fails, there is an honorable way to deal with unreconciliable problems in marriage: divorce, NOT adultery. That is why Mitt Romney is so appealing: in his personal life he has been completely faithful and honorable to the people that should be most important to him–his family. As a social conservative, I feel like Romney could talk openly about family, and communicate to the American people the need to keep the family strong and keep it together. The family unit is so important to the well-being of society.
As murphy says, he “[doesn't] recall anyone saying that they’d support Rudy (or Gingrich) if it weren’t for the adultery being a singularly disqualifying factor”. So it’s not the most important factor, but it is a factor to all of us who think the President of the United States is a high office that should be represented by one that embodies the honor and character we associate with such high honor in all aspects of his/her life.
As an example, to my son, I would be proud to point to a man like Mitt Romney and say “this man represents true American values–commitment to family, hard work, education, sacrifice, service, choosing a good woman to marry and sticking with her despite life’s difficulties, regularly attending Church service, raising a family, etc.” As far as looking at a candidates values, to me it wouldn’t matter if he was Jewish, Protestant, Catholic, whatever, as long as that sentence still applied. It’s an issue of integrity and example. Could I lift my head high and say I’m proud of Bill Clinton after the Lewinsky scandal, and point to him as a paragon of honor and chastity? Could I say the same of Guiliani?
July 31st, 2007 at 6:53 am
Tommy,
It doesn’t disqualify him Fred or anyone else, but it’s a negative. It would have been a negative for Reagan as well- not a disqualifier.
I am sorry you don’t like fornication, we could always call it “testing the waters.”
July 31st, 2007 at 7:10 am
I declared this to be a Rudy/Romney race back in March – and finally people are waking up to this reality.
By the way – if Thompson’s grand entry was going to hurt Romney so much – then it figures that his not so grand falling campaign will help Romney most.