Fox News has learned former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich will make a major announcement about his presidential aspirations in Atlanta on Thursday.
Washington sources close to the looming Gingrich campaign tell Fox News they have been told to be ready to travel to Atlanta Thursday when Gingrich will make an announcement about forming a presidential exploratory committee.
All signs point to Gingrich officially entering the 2012 race and these sources believe that Newt will throw his hat into the ring on Thursday by announcing that he has completed the proper paperwork to form an exploratory committee.
Fox News has learned that members of Gingrich’s inner circle are in the process of changing their email address away from Gingrich’s political organization, American Solutions, a tell tale sign that a campaign is on their horizon.
If any additional evidence was needed to illustrate an intention to run, one needs to only look at Gingrich’s upcoming travel schedule.
He has been flirting with the idea for months and will travel to the First in the Nation Presidential Caucus state of Iowa on March 7th where he will address the Iowa Faith and Freedom Coalition. The trip will be Gingrich’s third to the Hawkeye State in 2011 and his ninth visit since 2010.
Gingrich will also make an appearance in the first in the nation primary state of New Hampshire on March 17th when he attends Bernie Streeter’s Wild Irish Breakfast. The annual St. Patrick’s day breakfast in Nashua is a major political event in the Granite state that typically draws both Republicans and Democrats .
Gingrich would instantly be looked at as a formidable candidate. As Speaker of the House he presided over the body when Republicans introduced the Contract With America in 1994 and when they came to a stalemate with former President Clinton in 1995, leading to a federal government shutdown. He is considered by some to be one of the strongest “idea men” in the GOP.
(Source: Fox News)
Join the official YWN WhatsApp status
15 Responses
Oh, no! Mr. genius Contract With America wants to run? If the GOP hates Clinton, consider this: Clinton warned Gingrich that his Contract With America would leave our security agencies dangerously understaffed. Subsequently, 9/11 happened about six years later. The investigational report into 9/11 stated a significant problem was not enough staff to monitor “chatter” communications of terror suspects. In fact, only a very small fraction of that air “chatter” was being monitored. In summary, the GOP should know Clinton was smarter than Gingrich. Dont invest in Gingrich. Rudy in the one!
Let it be anybody, as long as Obama become the first one term president in the last two decades
Gingrich is a worn out name, the GOP needs some new meat.
The first 2 paragraphs of this article are another good example of Fox flim-flam. As written, the article reads as if Fox News investigators have scooped the other news media, as if Fox News is a news service. If I am not mistaken (and I was once before), Gingrich is on the Fox payroll. They can just read his leave-of-absence application if they want to know about his presidential campaign plans. Fox News is not a news organization, it is a PR firm for the US right wing.
The last paragraph is a fairly laughable form of Gingrich hype masquerading as news, also. That 1995 government shutdown was a major minus for Republicans.
Proof of Gingrich’s readiness to flim-flam is his statement (not reported above) that the 1995 guvamint shutdown was successful, as it resulted in the first re-election of a Republican majority in the House of Representatives in over 40 years. That half-truth fails to recognize that the Republicans never had a chance at re-election as a majority because they were the minority party for over 40 years. So bring on the twice-divorced, cheating, hypocritical family values candidate, as serious Republican candidates are, at least for the present, staying away from the 2012 presidential race because they are skeptical that they can win, notwithstanding the sorry state of the economy.
Pop quiz: Should commenter No. 1
a. check his/her facts?
b. check his/her punctuation?
c. check his/her medication?
d. all of the above?
#4 you sound like you are a kid playing color war and are on blue team. Seriously you only look at things in black and white.
O please dont make me chose between Obama and Gingrich. They are both awful, but I would be forced to vote for Gingrich.
Pop quiz, second question: Same as first question (set forth in comment no. 4), but substitute commenter no. 6 for commenter no. 1.
#4 and #8 (the same person saying nothing twice)
You are mean. I mochel you. Aside from that, do you only care to accept views that mirror your own.
Because I mochel you, I am interested in any two-way intelligent sharing of information regarding the facts, as you state,, and my punctuation (I admit my carelessness with posting online with a keyboard in comparison to actual writing by hand).
#5, (4 and 8, too)
This link should have the page I was looking at (25814) about four, five, and six paragraphs down, the 911 Commission Report reports the about lack of security staff being at “crisis” levels to deal with terrorist threats “in the past few years”. I have tried to tie the “past few years” to the drastic cuts made by Gingrich. I also recall reading that Clinton was critical of such cuts. Such evidence may be online or have been whitewashed by the Bushes.
I have made the effort in the spirit of rigorous debate and regret I cannot find the exact pieces online that I read back in the 1990’s when Gingrich was doing “his thing”.
Here is that link
http://books.google.com/books?id=1pqg0zUMAIYC&pg=PT781&lpg=PT781&dq=911+report+on+understaffed+security+agencies&source=bl&ots=h58tLuV9qO&sig=1BnGvqPYElG-qeiE8M-IEz_nwDE&hl=en&ei=U45uTYZr3ZqVB5-asKID&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CBQQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=false
#8 you are honestly immature and need to grow up.
No. 9: You are right, my comment no. 5 was mean. I apologize to you. I would appreciate your translating “mochel” into English, which is the only language in which I am fluent.
No. 12: I certainly wouldn’t want to be dishonestly immature. Perhaps you meant to say: “You are, honestly, immature ….” Setting off the word “honestly” with commas would make it an appositional modification of the state of mind of the speaker, i.e., you. You do not specify which of my comments shows immaturity, but I do realize that my comment no. 5 lacked chesed.
I dont grammar check my comments, I do not have the time for it. There is no point in responding to your comments further, since you are an ideologue who just likes to mock others under the cloak of the internet.
Ok, #13. I see you are not responding to the topic with any substance, and your sarcasm continues. I will back out of conversing with you on this topic; not because I am better, but because I understand how posting online can lead any and all of us to being flippant and backed into a corner to keep our integrity, even when we started it.
Take care.