I listened to Newt Gingrich on a radio news program (not a conservative talk show, but plain news) discussing the current situation involving Israel and Syria last night. What struck me about him was that he speaks from a clear conservative viewpoint without sounding apologetic at all and comes off smart as a whip. This is a guy who is comfortable speaking without notes because he absolutely knows his stuff. He is a scholar and a hard-nosed politico, which is a combination one does not easily find, particularly in the GOP ranks. Perhaps most importantly, he has and has always had vision.
Conclusion: I think we have to seriously consider supporting this guy for the White House in 2008. He is probably the best of the best. Of course, supporting Newt would be uncomfortable for conservatives because he has clearly had sexual indiscretions and we don’t like those. I think if he can successfully deal with that issue via candor and repentance, then we may have something with Mr. Gingrich.
11 comments:
Newt got a lot done, but he was on balance beaten by Bill Clinton. The really great ones learn their lesson and I imagine Newt learned a few.
Newt Gingrich has zero chance to win a national election for anything. He is a disliked figure to an extent that is irreversible.
In fact, I don't think he could even be confirmed for an appointed position.
Richard Nixon was pretty thoroughly disliked once, too. Then, he became President and learned what it's like to be loved, then hated, then flat-out villified. And then respected all over again.
Point being -- there is such a thing as a second act in American politics.
Every four years the massed punditry declares the entire Republican field "unelectable" for one reason or another, yet Republicans keep winning the White House.
If it was Gingrich against McCain or Guiliani I'd support Newt in a heartbeat, and I wasn't a big Newt fan in 1994. Right now my heart belongs to George Allen, but that may just be because he's a local boy. If he's not destined for 1600 Penn, Newt would make an awesome Secretary of State.
winning twice means you "keep winning"? I think you might want a longer streak before you say that.
My political memory extends back just a bit farther than Bill Clinton.
“George Allen”
Oh, Kathy, you’re voting HeeHaw for President? Senator Good Ol’ Boy? And here I thought your taste in television and music might lead to taste in politics. That fake-Virginian, Confederate-flag waving, tabaccy-chewing, noose-displaying waste of a human life? That’s where your heart lies? Why do you hate America, Kathy? Why do you hate all that is good and abandon reason and virtue to enable the likes of George Allen?
-Jim
you’re voting HeeHaw for President?
Coming from the party that afflicted us with Lyndon Johnson, Jimmy Carter, and Bill Clinton, that's pretty damn rich.
Politics isn't aesthetics. If it were, President Palmer would not be a fictional character and William Wegman would be chairman of the NEA.
(Great Wegman exhibit at the newly reopened Smithsomian American Art Museum/Portrait Gallery, by the way.)
“But Carter is a peanut farmer and from the South too!”
Oh please. Johnson I grant you (though I’d say GWB’s cowboy-schtick easily exceeds his). But HeeHaw is quite an excellent comparison for Allen (one you can’t dismiss just by attacking the statement; the reasoning is solid): His whole Southern Boy image is an affectation. He grew up in a wealthy Los Angeles suburb, for crying out loud. It’s an act! Clinton and Carter at least actually grew up in the South to justify their aw-shucks hick routines. Allen has to work at his particular brand of nonsense - it’s worse than Reagan’s occasional “rancher” costume changes.
Anyone who votes for Allen is enabling a totalitarian Christianist with a treason-and-lynchings fetish. A vote for Allen is a vote for proto-fascism and a violation of everything decent about the Republican Party’s history.
James, the whole "Christianist" thing is ridiculous. There are about a thousand Christians in America who think Biblical dominion of the public square is the goal and even they want to get there via persuasion.
"James, the whole "Christianist" thing is ridiculous."
Riiiight. You'll pardon me if I don't believe a word you say, since you're a prime example.
If you mean by Christianist what I think you mean, then you have insulted me well beyond any bounds of civility. Care to explain the label?
Post a Comment