Newt Not Running. [UPDATED]

As of today.  The immediate reason is a conflict of interest.  UPDATE:  On "This Week with George Stephanopoulos," Newt explains that his organization is a 527 and says, "McCain-Feingold criminalizes politics."  He's sounding very intellectually formidable. He was ready to launch an exploratory committee when it was brought to his attention that he could not be a candidate and continue to head his tax-exempt political organization, American Solutions for Winning the Future.

"I thought up until this morning we could explore [a presidential race]. This morning, the question was 'Do you end American Solutions?' [...]

"American Solutions is in its early stages of being a genuine citizen movement," Gingrich said. "To walk out on it just at it was getting launched is irresponsible. ... That basically ended the conversation. I'm not going to walk off and let American Solutions collapse."

In its infancy, American Solutions brings together national experts and decision makers to talk about ways of fixing the country's problems -- from dependence on oil to disappearing natural resources to damaged intelligence systems.

It's ironic because according to this, Gingrich may have launched American Solutions in the first place as a vehicle for his presidential ambitions -- thereby creating for himself a Catch-22.

You heard it here first:  watch for Newt to endorse Huck.  (Despite these qualms, I  made a small contribution to Huckabee's campaign today.) On "This Week":  "If Huckabee can find the money, he'll be competitive overnight."

Comments

[Internet Ronin]

Good for you for coming out of the closet ;-) And keep the contribution small because there is a good chance you may end up feeling like they will spent it all asking for more (no criticism of Huckabee intended - just an observation on how it usually works). Anyway, I also want to say I appreciate how you've shared your various thoughts about different candidates over the past few months as well, and were never dismissive, defensive, or disagreeable when others differed with you. (Note: Not one of my better alliterations - and, yes, I know, alliterations should be avoided - but it really did just pop out that way for once!)

[Simon]

Actually, if I had to bet money, I'd expect him to endorse Thompson if he endorses anyone.

[amba]

Well, Simon, read this. I'm linking it in the post.

[amba]

And then there's this/

[michael Reynolds]

Wow, Newt's going to send both his supporters to Huckabee?

Newt's not running because no one wants him to run. Newt remains the delusional nerd who thinks he's popular despite the complete lack of any evidence.

I do think Huckabee may be the GOP candidate who comes close to appearing genuine. Unfortunately he's genuinely wrong on the issues.

I would caution against our making the mistake again of choosing the guy we like and not the guy/girl who can do the job. We've had the likable guy for the last 7 years. Can we pretty please, just as an experiment, choose the person who would do the job well? Can we put at least as much thought into this as we would into hiring a new barrista, administrative assistant or delivery driver?

[amba]

We've had the likable guy for the last 7 years.

Speak for yourself.

[amba]

Also, the fact that you disagree with Huckabee (I do too, about a lot of things) doesn't mean he wouldn't do the job well. You can grant that your ideological enemies are not ipso facto incompetent.

My being tentatively willing to support him even where I disagree with him is that I have the impression he is not crazy on those issues. People who disagree but are sane and reasonably serious (not having fun flinging feces) can find common ground.

[Internet Ronin]

Michael, I know it is hard to believe but there really are many Gingrich suppporters still out there, particularly among dyed-in-the-wool never-miss-a-primary-election GOP voters. Whether or not his endoresement would translate into votes is a good question. With 8 candidates splitting the vote, if Gingrich could deliver 10% to someone that could make all the difference. Unlike the Democratic side, there is little solid support for any of the GOP contenders, except perhaps Romney among Mormons.

[michael Reynolds]

Also, the fact that you disagree with Huckabee (I do too, about a lot of things) doesn't mean he wouldn't do the job well. You can grant that your ideological enemies are not ipso facto incompetent.

I agree. I disagree with John McCain for example but think he'd make a good president. I tend to agree with Giuliani but don't think he'd be a particularly good president. Huckabee is an unknown aside from the fact that he seems like a decent guy.

But if you ask me who I'd turn the country over to on election day I'd say Hillary or Biden. It's interesting to me that you seem resistant to Hillary. It seems to me she's pretty close to you on the issues, she's at very least the most competent campaigner aside from Romney, and she's undeniably smart and experienced -- in effect senior adviser to both a governor and a president, and two-term Senator from a real state.

Is it the woman thing? (He says, deliberately trying to provoke.) Are you just not ready for a woman president?

[michael Reynolds]

IR:
I know there are a lot of people who think Newt is brilliant. (Somehow the evidence of that brilliance has escaped me.) BUt even the guys like Simon at Stubbornfacts.us who are in love with Newt don't seem to me to display much real enthusiasm for a Newt candidacy.

[Simon]

But if you ask me who I'd turn the country over to on election day I'd say Hillary or Biden.

I think Hillary could do the job, notwithstanding I think she'd do awful things with the job. But as one of those two people who like Newt that you alluded to, I have to voice the view that anyone who thinks Biden is qualified to do any job other than stare lovingly into a mirror is delusional.

And I think the idea that Bush is likable is preposterous. "Likable" is purely a subjective positon, as Amba's comment above suggests.

Newt's not running for the reason he said. And the only reason I've not devoted much time to arguing for his candidacy lately is because my assumption had been that if Thompson got in, Newt wouldn't run. I think he's deeply unfortunte that he'll never be President, because he is quite possibly the one person in the public eye in this country who gets it - who understands what is going on, thinks serious about them, and can communicate fluently to delineate the problem and propose a solution.

[Internet Ronin]

I said somewhere around here (or Althouse) that I think Biden would probably make an excellent Secretary of State but I'm not so sure about President. At the moment, I am inclined to vote for Hillary, not because I agree with most of her policy positions, but because I think she appears to me to be, thus far, the most capable of all of the candidates. I also think she will end up governing from the center, particularly after mid-term 2010 elections. Many criticize her for not being an idealogue and that is just fine with me. I hate to use such a loaded phrase, but she strokes me as Nixonian. Sans paranoia and Watergate, he actually accomplished quite a bit both domestically and internationally, despite a Democratic-controlled Congress. While I am at it, I am beginning to believe that Bush will bomb Iran before he leaves office (one reason being he'll get it over with and take the reputational hits so the next one doesn't have to because one of them has to). Finally, it seems to me that unposed pictures of Bill Clinton reveal someone who is not in good health, so I wonder just how long he will be around.

[Internet Ronin]

Oops! How did I do that empty comment?

Anyway, one recent suggestion by Gingrich is worth supporting: quit having these phony debates and have a series of real one-on-one debates. No moderator with hsi or her own agenda, no partisans posing as "members of the public" posing theirs, and no self-aggrandizing news readers posing theirs. At most a timekeeper if necessary.

[amba]

Is it the woman thing? Ha, ha. It'd be the woman thing if I voted for her because she's a woman despite the fact that I don't like her. I admit that I have been impressed by her skill as a campaigner and have been convinced that she is "presidential." And I think she's handled being a woman just fine: she's gotten it almost to recede into the background, which is as it should be. We're over that hurdle already, almost without a bump.

They just bring so much baggage. I'm not finding the "two for the price of one" thing cute, after what's under the bridge. She has never been an executive. She has a history of crafting an unwieldy, bureaucratic, managed solution. I would really rather not have another Bush or another Clinton in the White House. And so on. Do I think it would be a disaster if she were elected? No. Would I vote for her? Depends on who her opponent is.

[Internet Ronin]

They just bring so much baggage. I'm not finding the "two for the price of one" thing cute, after what's under the bridge. She has never been an executive. She has a history of crafting an unwieldy, bureaucratic, managed solution. I would really rather not have another Bush or another Clinton in the White House. And so on. Do I think it would be a disaster if she were elected? No. Would I vote for her? Depends on who her opponent is.

Those remain huge issues for me, BTW. At the moment, the scale tips her way for me but that could change.

[amba]

Interesting how that shakes out: of the putative front-runners, I'd vote for her over Romney or Thompson, because my instinct is they're phonies. (I can't defend that; go figure.) I'd vote for McCain over her, but doubt I'll have the chance. Rudy, tough decision. Despite his negatives (not his divorces or worldliness, but his high-handed high living on the lecture circuit and his Kerik sleaziness), he was a good mayor even before 9/11, and I have a certain loyalty to him.

[michael Reynolds]

IR:
I agree that she's Nixonian in the way you say. He was my first presidential vote, by the way. I'll always take competent-but-evil over bumbling-but-likable.

I can't imagine why I would identify personally with capable but slightly rotten people. I'll have to think on that.

[Internet Ronin]

McCain was born in 1936. He'd turn 73 in his first year in office. That is just too old for me (Reagan was 69). Giuliani was a good mayor but I feel like his ego would get in the way of picking the right people for an administration. I was extremely disappointed in his apparent lack of preparation in the early debates, particularly wrt to difficult questions everyone knew he would be asked.

[michael Reynolds]

IR:
Who needs preparation when the answer to every question is "9/11?"

[Internet Ronin]

Who indeed? Giuliani is also officially being advised by Norman Podhoretz and I do not find that comforting. Now it is true that an adviser only gives advice, and the candidate or president can take it or leave it, but I cannot fathom wht any serious candidate would want to be associated with Podhoretz. Then again, I am very disturbed that Clinton has allowed Sandy Berger into her inner circle. Of course, the difference is Podhoretz is likely to set off a nuclear chain reaction while Berger is only likely to steal a few minor documents, like the original Declaration of Independence or Constitution. If he does return in an official capacity, Michael, I suggest we relax our standards and require that he wear spandex shorts and shirts whenever in a government building.

[amba]

You got a point there, Mikey. He is leaning awfully heavily on that.

[Ruth Anne]

I agree with Michael Reynolds' point that W was the likeable candidate. Likeability in presidential politics is almost always a comparison to the other poor schlub who's running. W or Gore? W was more likeable to most people. W or Kerry? W was more likeable there, too.

[amba]

On his own terms, W was strange. He could be very likeable, and then he'd purse his little lipless mouth and get all prissy and petulant.

[Simon]

Amba - I'm not sure why you get that vibe from Thompson - I understand it from Romney, but why so Fred?

IR:

McCain was born in 1936. He'd turn 73 in his first year in office. That is just too old for me (Reagan was 69).

See, maybe it's just because my hero was born the same year as McCain, but I just don't look on being over seventy as any bar to being effective. John Paul Stevens is barelling down on ninety, and he's as sharp and articulate (and as downright frustratingly wrong) as he was twenty years ago. Age usually turns out to be a shorthand or figleaf for concerns about health, mental acuity, and so forth, and I don't think there's any reason to suppose McCain has problems on that score. And there are surely better reasons to be opposed to McCain than his age.

[Ruth Anne]

Amba:
But remember the heavily sighing Gore who was physically menacing during that first debate? W looked ready to rumble. And have you seen him in his jeans and boots? Male pulcritude at its cowboy finest. I have no Carter-esque lust in my heart, but, dang, he looked fine.

P.S. I also thought Gore looked good in a Clark Kent sort of way, too.

[amba]

Fred Thompson is an actor. Ronald Reagan played the part of genial, reassuring president so consummately that Republicans long to recreate that perfect fusion of performer and role. Ronnie's not coming back, though.

I suppose it's unfair to say Thompson is phony because he's an actor who's almost mastered that longed-for persona. But if it was ironic (and so American) the first time, it doesn't mean the idea will work again.

[amba]

Simon, my father knows JPStevens. His late brother Jim was my dad's close friend and bridge partner. Dad has played bridge with the Justice once or twice.

[amba]

Ruth Anne: Gore looked wooden and overripe at the same time. True that W's in shape and that's attractive.

[PatHMV]

McCain gets very nasty to the people who have the temerity to disagree with him. His handling of criticism of McCain-Feingold demonstrates to me a real weakness of character. He's never once, that I've seen, acknowledged the legitimate First Amendment issues raised by his legislation, and has reacted with great hostility toward people like Brad Smith, formerly of the FEC, who oppose his efforts. That's not what we need in a President right now.