• 
• 
• 
• 
by Mark Silva
Newt Gingrich, co-author of the Contract with America, has a new pledge that he is calling on the ultimate nominees for president to sign: Committing to nine 90-minute debates.
The former House speaker, appearing at the National Press Club today, proposed this "Nine Nineties in Nine'' pledge. It asks the presidential candidates, should they become their parties' nominees in 2008, to take part in nine, 90-minute "dialogues'' in the nine weeks running from Labor Day to the general election.
Gingrich, eyeing his own campaign and for now playing the role of chairman of American Solutions for Winning the Future, joined Marvin Kalb, a noted former television news reporter, in overnighting a copy of the pledge to each presidential candidate, according to Gingrich spokesman Rick Tyler.
“The 34-pages of rules that dictated the 2004 presidential debates have reduced the process to 30-second sound bites and rehearsed, consultant crafted talking points,” Gingrich said. “I urge all the candidates to sign the pledge and give the American people the substantive dialogue about solutions they deserve.”
Gingrich's spokesman tells us that "American Solutions for Winning the Future is a non-partisan organization built around three goals: to defend America and our allies abroad and defeating our enemies, to strengthening and revitalizing America’s core values, and to moving the government into the 21st Century. It will hold its naugural nationwide “Solutions Day” workshops on Sept. 27-29. Its general chairman is Gingrich.
The text of Gingrich's letter to presidential candidates:
Dear Presidential Candidate,
In February, former New York Democratic Governor Mario Cuomo and the former Republican Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich appeared together at the historic Cooper Union in New York City, the site where 147 years earlier Abraham Lincoln delivered the speech that arguably made him President.
Cuomo and Gingrich came to Cooper Union for one reason -- to demonstrate that it was possible for leaders from opposing political parties to have a thoughtful and civilized conversation about the future of America.
In contrast to this informative dialogue format are the 34-pages of rules that dictated the 2004 presidential debates which have reduced the presidential debate process to 30-second sound bites and rehearsed, consultant-crafted talking points. Missing from the debate are substance and solutions.
In the New York Times, Marvin Kalb asked: “with America’s role in the world more uncertain than ever, would it not make more sense to provide the voters with regular, predictable, serious access to their next president?” Today, we ask you that same question.
As a declared candidate for President, would you agree to sign the enclosed pledge indicating that if you are the nominee of your party in 2008, you will join your opponent in nine, ninety-minute dialogues in the nine weeks running from Labor Day to the general election. Ideally, each of the nine dialogues would be devoted to a single subject.
Informally, former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani has agreed to participate in the nine ninety-minute dialogues in nine weeks.
We believe the “nine nineties in nine” will give voters a chance to see the candidates in an unfiltered dialogue -- one that is informative, constructive and intelligent without the opportunities degenerating into political point scoring and sloganeering.
We believe it will not only be better for the political dialogue that has become so divisive; it will also be better for the future of the country, because it will foster the creation of needed solutions to meet today’s current challenges.
If you believe, as we do, that there is now an opportunity for a better political dialogue, then take this pledge. Give the American people the substantive dialogue about solutions they deserve, and sign and return the enclosed pledge today.
Sincerely,
Newt Gingrich
Marvin Kalb
Text of the Presidential Debate Pledge:
Presidential Debate Pledge
I,_____________________, pledge to the American people that if I receive my party's nomination for President of the United States, to participate in nine, ninety-minute dialogues in the nine weeks prior to the general election with my opponent.
In the Lincoln-Douglas style, I will agree to debate my opponent with only a time-keeper, and to insist upon no rules. I understand it will be just me and my solutions and my opponent with theirs.
Comments
Enough of his pledges...Please...The republicans are the ones that got rid of the "Newt".
Posted by: bill r. | August 7, 2007 10:11 AM
You Republics sure you want to hear Newt? Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich said the Bush administration is waging a
phony war" on terrorism, warning that the country is losing ground against the kind of Islamic radicals who attacked the country on Sept. 11, 2001.
A more effective approach, said Gingrich, would begin with a national energy strategy aimed at weaning the country from its reliance on imported oil and some of the regimes that petro-dollars support.
• More Nation/World news
"None of you should believe we are winning this war. There is no evidence that we are winning this war," the ex-Georgian told a group of about 300 students attending a conference for collegiate conservatives.
Posted by: Raving Loon | August 7, 2007 10:20 AM
Newt Gingrich, desperate for attention to feed his insatiable ego, makes yet another pitch to keep himself in the news, as a weary public yawns once again.
Posted by: Tom | August 7, 2007 10:32 AM
What he left out was that ideally (for himself), 80 minutes is just him talking uninterupted, reveling in the sound of his own voice.
Posted by: kb | August 7, 2007 10:37 AM
Let's give Newt his due: his is a very bright guy and, when he's not running for office, actually has some well-thought-through ideas. His perspective on the evolution of politiacl thought in America is actually very cogent.
The 3 big problems with Newt, though, are:
1) He is definitely running for office and so everything he says is automatically suspect. It would be foolish and dangerous to take what he says at face value.
2) He's a liar - claiming his contract with America was a success - despite not one promise ever passing or being enacted.
3) He's a disguting hypocrite! He was having a secret extramarital affair while prosecuting someone else for exactly the same thing. Then, when his wife was very ill with cancer, he dumped her for the other woman. He supports "defense of marriage act!"
The perfect spot for Newt is as a history professor somewhere and, maybe, someone who writes "letters to the editor" in a few newspapers from time to time. The less public exposure and influence, the better.
Posted by: snalg | August 7, 2007 11:01 AM
Again, who is Newt Gingerich?? OK, former Speaker of the House. Nowadays he's a persona non grata grasping for attention. Someone who loves to hear himself talk. Someone who considers himself highly moral and ethical but yet has committed adultery his entire life. Someone who is a practicing full scale hypocrite.
Posted by: Doug R. | August 7, 2007 11:18 AM
Peasant: "She turned me into a Newt."
Sir Bedevere: "A Newt?"
Peasant: "I got better."
-Monty Python and the Holy Grail
Unfortunately, this Newt only gets worse.
9-9-9 is way too much. I realize they need to debate, but they also need to "campaign". 3, 2 hour long debates would sound about right.
Posted by: Steve34 | August 7, 2007 11:26 AM
Snalg, sorry to inform you but much of the Contract with America was enacted sand implemented. You need to do some research.
You are correct in that Gingrich has many great ideas. You are also correct in that Newt has problems, the least of which is his ego. But then don't all politicians, especially those who run for president, have egos?
And if the Left would open their teenie weenie little minds for once (and a process I will not hold my breath on ever happening) they might actually hear some sound ideas and policies from Newt.
Posted by: John D | August 7, 2007 11:36 AM
John D, sound ideas by Newt like:
The Bush administration is waging a "phony war" on terrorism, warning that the country is losing ground against the kind of Islamic radicals who attacked the country on Sept. 11, 2001.
A more effective approach, said Gingrich, would begin with a national energy strategy aimed at weaning the country from its reliance on imported oil and some of the regimes that petro-dollars support.
"None of you should believe we are winning this war. There is no evidence that we are winning this war," the ex-Georgian told a group of about 300 students attending a conference for collegiate onservatives. "I believe we need to find leaders who are prepared to tell the truth ... about the failures of the performance of Republicans ... failed bureaucracies ... about how dangerous the world is," he said when asked what kind of Republican he would back for president.
Sound like a loony lefter to me!!!!
Posted by: Gus | August 7, 2007 12:32 PM
"WAR ON TERROR" "AXIS OF EVIL" "EVIL DOERS" "NATION OF SECULAR LAWS" "IRAQ IS THE CENTRAL FRONT ON THIS WAR ON TERROR" "CUT AND RUN" "STRATEGY FOR VICTORY"
"IT'S HARD WORK" "NINE NINETIES IN NINE" "CONTRACT WITH THE FEW AMERICANS" "AMERICAN SOLUTIONS FOR WINNING THE FUTURE".........."PURGING OF THE PROSECUTORS" TO SECURE ANOTHER SUPPRESSED VOTERS OUTCOME" VETO VETO VETO, VETO THE POOR TO POOR STARDUM IN THE NEXT KATRINA BOWL.
SAVE ME THE RHETORIC AND DO THE AMERICAN PEOPLE AND PROBABLY ALL OF YOUR EX WIVES A FAVOR AND JUST SHUT YOUR NECK NEWT.
BE A MAN AND ASK ONE OF THESE QUESTION?
BY SIGNING INTO LAW, A LAW THAT CIRCUMVENTS THE 4TH AMENDEMENT IS NOT ILLEGAL AND UNCONSTITUTIONAL AT BEST, RIGHT?
BY EAVES DROPPING ON AMERICANS WITHOUT A WARRANT AND WITHOUT A "ACTIONABLE INTELLIGENCE" OR A WARRANT BY A FISA JUDGE, IS NOT ILLEGAL UNDER THE 4TH AMENDMENT?
IS CAGING AN ILLEGAL OFFENSE IN THE UNITED STATES?
I DON'T THINK IT WILL TAKE NINE NINETIES IN NINE TO ANSWER THOSE QUESTIONS. I DON'T THINK YOU WOULD BE ALLOWED TO ASK SUCH A QUESTION. AND I KNOW THE GOP WOULD NOT BE OF "PRIVILEGE" TO ANSWER THEM TRUTHFULLY.
SO WHY BOTHER? NEWT SHOULDN'T YOU BE IN JAIL ANYWAYS? WERE YOU NOT THE LAST "HIGHEST RANKING GOP IN AMERICAS HISTORY AS THE SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE" THAT COMMITTED CRIMES AGAINST THE AMERICAN PEOPLE. WERE YOU NOT CENSORED AND ASKED NEVER TO WALK THE HALLS OF THE HOUSE FLOORS? WHO LET YOU IN THROUGH THE BACK DOOR? WHAT LOBBYIST IS PAYING FOR YOUR MEALS? TOM DELAY?
I TAKE IT THIS NINE NINETIES IN NINE WOULD BE HELD AT A LOCAL COLLEGE OR UNIVERSITY?
KEEP YOUR "CULTURE OF CORRUPTION GOP LEADERS AWAY FROM MY CHILD"
DID THE GOP COME INTO SOME MONEY? DID THE GOP GET A PAYDAY LOAN FROM RUPERT MURDOCH.
Posted by: Roger Morris | August 7, 2007 12:47 PM
So the Streamwood Serpent spews vitriol and venom without providing any examples of what was enacted from the Contract with America.
Posted by: jethro | August 7, 2007 12:53 PM
So the Streamwood Serpent spews vitriol and venom without providing any examples of what was enacted from the Contract with America.
Posted by: jethro | August 7, 2007 12:53 PM
Jethro, can you point one time YOU didn't "spewvitriol and venom," and one time when you actually backed up your nonsense?
Anyway, here from Wikipedia, not the best source, but it will do. Besides, you weirdos only believe what you want to believe anyway. Much of the contract was enacted, much of it passed the House but not the Senate.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contract_with_America
Posted by: John D | August 7, 2007 2:31 PM
Newt: GET LOST! Take yourself, your "contract with america", and your six sixty minutes of debate over six weeks and kindly place it (in a shady place)
Posted by: The Decider | August 7, 2007 2:57 PM
It's not about the man. It's about the idea.
Call him what you want.
Are you going tell me that un-moderated 90 minute dialogs are a bad idea?
Posted by: Sean Wagoner | August 7, 2007 3:44 PM
In a shady place lol! Nice editing!
Posted by: The Decider | August 7, 2007 3:48 PM
Hey snalg, now that's a blog.
Posted by: Rob S | August 7, 2007 4:54 PM
Newt is this . . . Newt is that. . .
I'm for 90-minute unscripted debates.
All this personal drivel accomplishes nothing.
Posted by: i_love_consistency | August 7, 2007 6:59 PM