• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Would you support Newt Gingrich for Speaker?

Would you support Newt Gingrich for Speaker?

  • Yes

    Votes: 6 16.7%

  • No

    Votes: 28 77.8%

  • Other

    Votes: 2 5.6%
  • Total voters
    36
  • Poll closed .
Frank Apisa said:
Sorta like a person can be elected pope...and not be a cardinal.

In fact, doesn't have to be a bishop.

In fact, doesn't have to be a priest.

Doesn't even have to be Catholic.

Although in order to take the office, the person would be required to become Catholic, become a priest, be consecrated a bishop...

...and then put on the white vestments.

Newt's route to the Speaker's chair would be much easier.

Sure would be interesting to see the nation's reaction. And even more interesting to see the extreme conservative (Freedom Caucus) bloc's reaction.

(Just discovered yesterday that a congressman from my state was one of the founders of the "Freedom Caucus." )
Click to expand...

The freedom caucus would probably be on board. Newt has got guts and is pretty damn intelligent, both of which is lacking in the current Republican establishment. I don't necessarily agree with him on some issues but none the less he was a pretty good speaker. Newt would be far superior to my congressman McCarthy by a very longshot.
 
Objective Voice said:
What!?! :shock:

You mean an un-elected individual could come into Congress (House of Representatives) and govern? Who the hell made that dumb-ass rule?
Click to expand...

Said dumb ass would have to be elected. Not too mention fired as well, if congress so chose.
 
Not to be disrespectful, but it's bat**** crazy to think that Joe the Plumber could be taken off the street and determined to be third in line to the Presidency on the vote of just 226 members of Congress.
 
CanadaJohn said:
Not to be disrespectful, but it's bat**** crazy to think that Joe the Plumber could be taken off the street and determined to be third in line to the Presidency on the vote of just 226 members of Congress.
Click to expand...

Exactly!

It's why I think if the House GOP does go that route, no one should doubt any longer that the Republican Party has gone off the freakin' rails!
 
Objective Voice said:
Exactly!

It's why I think if the House GOP does go that route, no one should doubt any longer that the Republican Party has gone off the freakin' rails!
Click to expand...

It's not just Republicans - if I understand things correctly, the Speaker is elected by the entire House of Representatives, not just the Republican caucus. It's possible, in that sense, that several Democrats may be necessary to secure the necessary numbers to elect the next Speaker if the Republicans can't agree on a compromise.
 
pbrauer said:
John Boehner exit: Anyone can run for House speaker, even you - CSMonitor.com
Click to expand...

I'd always thought the House Speaker would be someone elected from the House majority party. Never though anyone would be stupid enough to take the line from the Constitution "The House of Representatives shall chose their Speaker and other Officers..." so damned literal.

I mean, why would you elect someone to that position who ISN'T from the House? Put another way, why would the House (majority) elect someone whose not from their "House"?
 
It wouldn't matter if Gingrich becomes speaker of the house. Seriously, the GOP House has been leveled from within. It has been a long time coming but we have all seen it coming and it is ugly. There really is no party to speak of. No unity. Why have unifying speaker? A bit like having a unifying speaker for Hiroshima the day after the bomb, no?

You cannot unify that which does not want to be unified. In the GOP the difference between a friend and an enemy is that a friend stabs you in the front.

No one knows what the GOP is anymore. How do you unify that? I have already sent a letter to National Republican Committee Chairman Reince Preibus to formally suggest that now is a perfect time to re-brand the GOP to something more representative of the party. Get rid of "GOP" and replace it with "WTF?".

What we see are semi-defined warring mobs who are intent on destroying each other while somewhere in it all they supposedly focus on the People so that America's collective voice will be heard....after mountains of dark money is collected from Big Business and foreign governments. As a result a hell of a lot of nothing gets done, and nothing gets done a lot.

The GOP tent is like America's "Toughest Sheriff" Joe Arpaio's jail tent where street gangs, Neo-Nazis, Black Panthers, perverts, rogue independents, Mexicans and garden variety desert crazies are all housed together for punishment and supposedly rehabilitation. Yeah, try picking a speaker in Sheriff Joe's prison tent, one that would speak for all, one whose leadership would bring unity and sense of purpose. :lamo Same same, among warring GOP warring mobs.

You want Newt Gingrich? Sure, why not? What could it hurt?
 
Risky Thicket said:
It wouldn't matter if Gingrich becomes speaker of the house. Seriously, the GOP House has been leveled from within. It has been a long time coming but we have all seen it coming and it is ugly. There really is no party to speak of. No unity. Why have unifying speaker? A bit like having a unifying speaker for Hiroshima the day after the bomb, no?

You cannot unify that which does not want to be unified. In the GOP the difference between a friend and an enemy is that a friend stabs you in the front.

No one knows what the GOP is anymore. How do you unify that? I have already sent a letter to National Republican Committee Chairman Reince Preibus to formally suggest that now is a perfect time to re-brand the GOP to something more representative of the party. Get rid of "GOP" and replace it with "WTF?".

What we see are semi-defined warring mobs who are intent on destroying each other while somewhere in it all they supposedly focus on the People so that America's collective voice will be heard....after mountains of dark money is collected from Big Business and foreign governments. As a result a hell of a lot of nothing gets done, and nothing gets done a lot.

The GOP tent is like America's "Toughest Sheriff" Joe Arpaio's jail tent where street gangs, Neo-Nazis, Black Panthers, perverts, rogue independents, Mexicans and garden variety desert crazies are all housed together for punishment and supposedly rehabilitation. Yeah, try picking a speaker in Sheriff Joe's prison tent, one that would speak for all, one whose leadership would bring unity and sense of purpose. :lamo Same same, among warring GOP warring mobs.

You want Newt Gingrich? Sure, why not? What could it hurt?
Click to expand...

I don't mind Newt, but he is NOT my first choice. Or even my second. The house IMHO ought to elect something that is NOT homo sapiens my first choice would be a skunk, we can call him or her Stinky or Stinker and have issues decided by coin flips. It would solve the race issue once and for all because not only will the skunk be black AND white, but he, or she, or it if it is a transgendered skunk, will help America transcend Speciesizm. And most importantly no congressman would want to show up to work, and make every excuse they could to stay with their constituent's where they belong.

My second choice is a potted plant of some sort. If that is not available then third choice would be I suppose ,Newt as he is the best alternative a bad bunch of them. But only after rejecting the potted plant.
 
Objective Voice said:
How would that even happen? Last I checked, you had to be elected to Congress before even being elected to be Speaker of the House. And since Newt Gingrich is a private citizen now...

'Nuff said. Why bring back that old re-tread? And isn't that the problem with the GOP today? Too much reliance on the old guard with no new ideas?
Click to expand...

as opposed to the new breed of gop with increasingly nilhistic veiws of government?
 
PirateMk1 said:
I don't mind Newt, but he is NOT my first choice. Or even my second. The house IMHO ought to elect something that is NOT homo sapiens my first choice would be a skunk, we can call him or her Stinky or Stinker and have issues decided by coin flips. It would solve the race issue once and for all because not only will the skunk be black AND white, but he, or she, or it if it is a transgendered skunk, will help America transcend Speciesizm. And most importantly no congressman would want to show up to work, and make every excuse they could to stay with their constituent's where they belong.

My second choice is a potted plant of some sort. If that is not available then third choice would be I suppose ,Newt as he is the best alternative a bad bunch of them. But only after rejecting the potted plant.
Click to expand...

I'm good with that. However, I can't imagine the "Freedom Caucus" approving anything that relates to personal freedom and therefore anything with word "pot" or "potted" would likely meet with immediate disapproval. A skunk will work for me or even a huge hunk of pig iron.
 
Since I live in Georgia and I think Newt was Georgian, I would say yes.
 
CanadaJohn said:
It's not just Republicans - if I understand things correctly, the Speaker is elected by the entire House of Representatives, not just the Republican caucus. It's possible, in that sense, that several Democrats may be necessary to secure the necessary numbers to elect the next Speaker if the Republicans can't agree on a compromise.
Click to expand...

218 is the magic number of votes required for a canidate to be elected speaker of the house.

there are 247 republicans in the current majority. under normal circumstances the republicans have a large enough majority to not need the votes of the democrats.

unfortunatly the current state of affairs in the house is anything but normal.
 
Unitedwestand13 said:
as opposed to the new breed of gop with increasingly nihilistic veiws of government?
Click to expand...

Both are just as screwed up. One breed can't let go of the past. They other won't look towards the future.

Unitedwestand13 said:
218 is the magic number of votes required for a candidate to be elected speaker of the house.

there are 247 republicans in the current majority. under normal circumstances the republicans have a large enough majority to not need the votes of the democrats.

unfortunatly the current state of affairs in the house is anything but normal.
Click to expand...

My view exactly.

It's apparent that the House GOP is so fractured they can't whip enough votes among their party to win a clear majority on any one candidate. It's the reason why they'd need a few Democrats to come onboard with whomever is the GOP favorite. Problem here, of course, is since that small faction that holds so much sway happens to be so far to the Right, there's no way the House Dems will bail them out.

In essences, House Democrats are just fine letting the House GOP step all over itself considering they wanted the Far-Right Nut Jobs in the Tea Party on their side. Well, like I've often said, "Be careful what you wish for....you just might get it."
 
Objective Voice said:
Both are just as screwed up. One breed can't let go of the past. They other won't look towards the future.



My view exactly.

It's apparent that the House GOP is so fractured they can't whip enough votes among their party to win a clear majority on any one candidate. It's the reason why they'd need a few Democrats to come onboard with whomever is the GOP favorite. Problem here, of course, is since that small faction that holds so much sway happens to be so far to the Right, there's no way the House Dems will bail them out.

In essences, House Democrats are just fine letting the House GOP step all over itself considering they wanted the Far-Right Nut Jobs in the Tea Party on their side. Well, like I've often said, "Be careful what you wish for....you just might get it."
Click to expand...

here is an added headache: the freedom caucus, a group of forty conservative republicans in the house, are passing out a questionare to potential canidates for the speakership.

Freedom Caucus suggests House rules changes - POLITICO

here is the document in question

http://www.politico.com/f/?id=00000150-49be-d501-ab5d-6dbf7cd70000
 
Objective Voice said:
Both are just as screwed up. One breed can't let go of the past. They other won't look towards the future.



My view exactly.

It's apparent that the House GOP is so fractured they can't whip enough votes among their party to win a clear majority on any one candidate. It's the reason why they'd need a few Democrats to come onboard with whomever is the GOP favorite. Problem here, of course, is since that small faction that holds so much sway happens to be so far to the Right, there's no way the House Dems will bail them out.

In essences, House Democrats are just fine letting the House GOP step all over itself considering they wanted the Far-Right Nut Jobs in the Tea Party on their side. Well, like I've often said, "Be careful what you wish for....you just might get it."
Click to expand...

It is an interesting dilemma. If the "Freedom Caucus", who are obstructionists by desire and design, were to achieve their goal and have a fellow obstructionist voted as Speaker of the House nothing but nothing would be accomplished. There would be no working across the isle.

I realize that some of them and some of their supporters would like nothing more than to have a non-functioning government. That is not the wish of most Americans, however.

I would submit that the Freedom Caucus and their supporters do not care what most Americans want. They are not interested in nor do they want any form of democracy.
 
He has the experience to do the job, the ego to want that thankless task, and is probably acceptable politically to enough of the caucus to get 218 votes. Plus, the entertainment value. :) Let him come in until the November 2016 Election, and then bow out.
 
Risky Thicket said:
It is an interesting dilemma. If the "Freedom Caucus", who are obstructionists by desire and design, were to achieve their goal and have a fellow obstructionist voted as Speaker of the House nothing but nothing would be accomplished. There would be no working across the isle.

I realize that some of them and some of their supporters would like nothing more than to have a non-functioning government. That is not the wish of most Americans, however.

I would submit that the Freedom Caucus and their supporters do not care what most Americans want. They are not interested in nor do they want any form of democracy.
Click to expand...

Seems to me it's all about consolidating power amongst House Conservatives rather than governing. I just read the questionnaire. Seems to me if the Conservative wing of the House GOP doesn't get their way, they'll retaliate against anyone who goes against them. On the one hand, they're asking for equal or fair representation for their Conservative views, but at the same time they looking to amend house rules while making it clear that should they come into power they'd punish anyone who didn't hold the party line.

Power is what they seek, not governance.
 
Objective Voice said:
Seems to me it's all about consolidating power amongst House Conservatives rather than governing. I just read the questionnaire. Seems to me if the Conservative wing of the House GOP doesn't get their way, they'll retaliate against anyone who goes against them. On the one hand, they're asking for equal or fair representation for their Conservative views, but at the same time they looking to amend house rules while making it clear that should they come into power they'd punish anyone who didn't hold the party line.

Power is what they seek, not governance.
Click to expand...

look up questions 11, 13, and 15 on the questionare under policy.

alarm bells should be ringing.
 
I am a huge fan of his. That thing he did way back when was legendary. And the later version of his actions that day have never been forgotten. Sure there was that unfortunate problem with that woman that became public - but we all make mistakes. I think he would be just what the Republican party needs.

One question?

Who the heck is Newt Gingrich?
 
Unitedwestand13 said:
look up questions 11, 13, and 15 on the questionare under policy.

alarm bells should be ringing.
Click to expand...

I saw that. It's why I said for House GOP Conservatives, it's not about governing. It's about having things their way and consolidating power unto that Wing of the Republican Party.

Entitlement spending goes down with the rate of unemployment coupled with quality jobs with decent pay. It doesn't make sense for either Party to claim fewer people are unemployed, but the masses still can't sustain decent living standards on their own. This is what all the fuss was about from the Heritage Foundation when they put forward the argument that even poor people have refrigerators, microwave ovens and cellphones these days forgetting (or ignoring) the fact that as time goes by those things that were once luxury items for the well off eventually become commonplace for everyone else because the cost of such items goes down. In short, it's easier and much more cost effective to outfit a home or apartment with a dishwasher or place a small microwave oven in an apartment than it was 20-35 years ago especially when your economy is based on consumption. Even the poor would buy a flat screen TV if you put enough money in their pockets and subsidize other cost items, i.e., food, shelter, insurance.

People who hold tight to the idea that poor people can't help foster the nation's economy fail to take into account the mechanics of financial transactions in a consumer-driven economy. But I digress because the issue really isn't about the economics of the poor necessarily, as much as it is about how some people ignore the contributions the poor make to the overall national economy.

I'd love to see more people doing more for themselves so that the federal government doesn't have to subsidizes such a large portion of the citizenry myself, but folks have to realize that entitlement spending will go down as the national unemployment rate - whether seasonally adjusted or those who perceptively have stopped looking for work or applying for unemployment benefits - get down to or below 3-5% -- the measure most economist consider to be acceptable sustainable national unemployment. We're close, but not quite there yet.
 
DA60 said:
I am a huge fan of his. That thing he did way back when was legendary. And the later version of his actions that day have never been forgotten. Sure there was that unfortunate problem with that woman that became public - but we all make mistakes. I think he would be just what the Republican party needs.

One question?

Who the heck is Newt Gingrich?
Click to expand...

:lamo

I just think it would be dangerous for any Party to elect an outsider to lead them. I've always believed it a given that the Speaker would be someone elected from among its House members. I never thought an outsider could ever be elected to the position. It's why I was surprised at the notion that House Republicans (or either Party for that matter) would even entertain the idea of electing an outsider as Speaker. I just think it's political suicide because it shows that the entire Party (House Republicans) have a vote of "no confidence" about each other's ability to lead and/or govern. That's a sad day for any Party that gets to that point.
 
Even though, strictly speaking, it is not a requirement that the House Speaker even be a member of the House, I think that especially now, when the United States is in such a wretched, fractured, ****ed-up mess, the Speaker of the House should be someone who is currently an elected Representative. Link: Bustle
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom