Posted on 06/16/2006 3:09:55 PM PDT by RWR8189
The Hon. Newt Gingrich's recent oracular rumble to a luncheon audience at the Brookings Institution, during which he threatened to seek the Republican presidential nomination if a "vacuum" remains in the Republican field, reminded me of an inescapable insight I suffered sometime in 1998. Mr. Gingrich is the Republicans' Bill Clinton. Being a Republican, Mr. Gingrich is not as hollow as the Arkansas huckster, nor as amusing. In fact, he can be boring.
Springing from the same late 1960s jugendkultur as the Boy President, Mr. Gingrich is the career pol, the hustling, self-promoting narcissist, the sempiternal fantasist. When he was Speaker of the House I should have called him the Boy Speaker. He made his exit from politics like a troubled adolescent: whining, blustering, and guilty as charged.
Had Mr. Gingrich measured himself scrupulously against those Republicans now mentioned as presidential contenders, he never could have spoken of a "vacuum." George Allen, Rudy Giuliani, John McCain, and Mitt Romney are all sturdier candidates than the Boy Speaker whose House colleagues politely put a banana peel under his well-worn wingtips in 1998.
Doubtless there are many other Republicans who would be preferable to Mr. Gingrich. How about Tom Tancredo? What is it that makes Mr. Gingrich think he is a fit candidate to lead the nation? He prides himself on being an intellectual, by which he means being a policy wonk. This is another of his fantasies; he confuses wonkiness with learnedness and wisdom. This is a fantasy he shares with Clinton.
I once heard an English gentleman, fresh from bathing in Mr. Clinton's radiance, confide to the great British historian Paul Johnson that Clinton is "so intelligent." "Not intelligent," Mr. Johnson responded, "cunning." The word encapsulates Mr. Gingrich's thought process perfectly. Yet again, Mr. Gingrich is a Republican. He is
(Excerpt) Read more at washtimes.com ...
I guess that's why we have primaries. I like Newt better than any of those he mentioned.
I like Newt better than most of the possible candidates, but if he's up to it, I'd like to see him in any new administration in any capacity that helps shape policy. Maybe Chief of Staff at the very least.
Tyrrell sounds a tad bitter, no?
Newt isnt electable. Please remember why he got out of the politics game.
Newt has become like Buchanan. He is more concerned with his ego than the conservative movement or the Republican Party. They both need to be in the spot light.
He didn't lose an election. Social conservatives may hold a grudge forever regarding his previous marriage. That's a fact.
But as far as being able to articulate the conservative message regarding foreign policy, fiscal responsibility, and public policy, he's the best out there.
He may have been not guilty of those charges, but he's guilty of betraying his constituents of which I was one for many years. He said once at the outset of the BC debacle over lying to judges and grand juries (lower case because they don't deserve better) that he would " Hold President Clinton accountable for both legal and MORAL (as in Monica) malfeasance." He promptly was caught almost 6 months later with his own uh....member, dipping where it shouldn't have been. All the while NEVER doing what he said he'd do. Newt can stay in obscurity.
I consider myself a social conservative (as well as a fiscal conservative), and I don't hold a grudge against him.
I disagree with aspects of his personal behavior, but, as I see it, he's the only candidate out there with any name recognition that I can stomach on the issues.
>>>>Gingrich is the Republicans' Bill Clinton.
I'd say Rudy Giuliani is a far better comparison to Bill Clinton. Anyone who confuses Newt Gingrich with Bill Clinton doesn't know anything about American politics.
Newt was one of the binding ties in recent conservative politics. He came along at the right time and took a handfull of conservative ideas, forming them into the Contract With America. Newt was the driving force behind the GOP gaining control of Congress in 1995 and for his hard work and focused leadership, all Republicans owe Newt a debt of graditude to this man.
Emmett Tyrrell has been a forceful voice for conservatism through the years, but with this article, I think he's gone bonkers. Tyrrell's hatred of "Boy Clinton" was always on the edge and seemed way over the top on many occasions. Attacking the way he has, one of the stalwarts of consertvatism seems petty if not downright pathetic.
Newt Gingrich advanced conservatism like no one since Ronald Reagan. If Newt believes in running for POTUS he can make a difference for America, I say more power to him. Whether Newt will actually become a candidate for POTUS, is a different story.
At least Newt ran for public office and reached the third highest position in the government. For years Newt fought the good fight in the arena of political ideas, battling liberals like Tip O'Neill and Jim Wright at every opportunity. Through his leadership, Newt moved the Republican Party from minority status to majority control of the federal government. After 40 years of wandering in the political wilderness, the GOP was finally the party in power, and we have Newt Gingrich to thank for that happening.
Maybe Newt's day has come and gone. We shall see.
I've thought about it a lot and decided I'm probably not a "social conservative" because even though I believe in at least 80% of those positions, I have enough hesitation with the other 20% to get me ostracized.
Besides, I believe in forgiveness for behavior that is non-criminal. Ronald Reagan was divorced before he ran for President.
Besides, we're not seriously discussing electing a religious leader. We're discussing a political leader. Sometimes it's hard to keep those considerations apart, but it's still a fact.
Let's see if Mr. Newt gets into the Primaries. Vs. MCaniac and the rest of the golden boys. Newt can orate like few others (Keys is THE KING ORATOR)...he'd probably win the Patriotic Hearts and Minds...
I like him, I can forgive his private life issues since he wasn't doing it in his OFFICE--that we KNOW of... None of us really do know what went on there with his wife, the other woman etc...do we?
I want to hear what he has to say...
G
Newt Gingrich is Hillary's fantasy candidate. I can see her now, rifling in her filing cabinet, searching for Newt's folder. It's there. She knows what's inside. And he knows she knows. Probably no more than we already know, but day after day, 24-7 of Newtgate would just about Newtralize the Republican party. It's just not worth it.
NO he didn't lose an election but he has enough garbage in his past that it will rise up to haunt him over other candidates that don't have that history.
I would vote for Newt anyday
To the best of his ability, Newt Gingrich tried to keep his private life, PRIVATE. Which is more then can be said for Bill Clinton. Newt may not have led a perfect life, but who has. Newt's been married three times. From what I hear, his first marriage ended ugly. Clinton's been deceiving the public throughout his marriage to Hillary Rotten. I'm not sure if Newt would make the best POTUS, but he'd get my vote should the opportunity arise.
I wouldn't vote for Newt for dog catcher. Count me as another one of his Georgia constituents that felt betrayed when Clinton played him like a cheap fiddle because New was doing some double-dipping of his own.
He has too much need for public recognition. His personal life is his business, except that the gal he is currently married to was a staffer, so I assume the relationship began on my dime.
I also don't like him because he is too easily brought into the enemy's tent ( Hillary, for example) and also because he went to Hastert's side on the Jefferson FBI raid controversy.
He is unelectable as a presidential candidate. Period.
Mr. Tyrell nails it... I'm surprised. I would have thought he would be more of a Newt supporter than this blistering but realistic assessment. Newt has no charm and very little likeability. No leadership credentials of any consequence, even the GOP takeover of Congress. Yes, he fashioned a decent strategy with the Contract but then had no lasting leadership skills to pursue the Contract. Some might view that as "Presidential credentials" -- I would sorely disagree.
Dittoes to your reply!
Watch Newt run..Watch Newt win a few..Watch Newt get killed in the November
Newt at best would be in a draw with Hillary for likeability, and I don't think he could necessarily win that contest.
Just because someone says something that you like or agree with does NOT mean that they are a good candidate. He has already been on the cover of Time as The Grinch. Imagine what the media could do with him in a presidential campaign.
I also don't think he has the temperament to be president. That requires someone with an even temper, a desire to do what is right even if it's not politically wise, and an ability to gain and keep the confidence of the people.
He just doesn't have it.
Miss Marple, I agree with your assessment... You also need an optimist. Ronald Reagan taught us that. Whatever good traits Newt has, optimism is not one of them. And that speaks to his temperament, as you noted.
I expect Freepers will slam me for this, but right now, the best person in the field is, in my opinion, The Mayor: Rudy Guilliani. Proven leader; terrific administrator; great at taking on huge challenges and bringing focused attention to those challenges. I suspect he would appoint Judicial Conservatives despite his liberal orientation on many social issues. I also suspect he will be an economic conservative (reform tax law via fair or flat tax, and control discretionary spending while reforming social security and medicare which will have to be addressed in the next two administration). But most importantly, Rudy would be a terrific leader in the war on terror and I'm sure he would surround himself with outstanding administrators. JMHO... I'm ready for the flaming.
save
If Newt doesn't have enough sense to know that Hillary got his FBI file too, he's unfit for ANY office. Wasn't he kissing up to her awhile back?
Exactly. He's the Republican version of Gore.
Ditto!
I voted for him multiple times and could have forgiven him his peccadillos. It should have had nothing to do with the job I depended on him to do in Washington.
Then he ran off like an embarrassed nancy boy. The effect was to help fix in the sheeples minds that Clintoon's situation was just Moral Majority harassment. For Newt to be so smart, that was pretty dumb.
I also always thought Mary Anne was a very nice lady and I can't help thinking that Newt is a sullen and moody person in private which isn't a good character trait for the loneliest job in the world. [Proper deference to Kim Jong-Il.]
It would vote for him again but only to keep a Socialist out of the WH.
I've had enough of likeable candidates. I want someone who will actually do something.
You left off an adjective from your list describing Giuliani: liberal.
Gingrich is a strategist, not a tactical politician. He gets into petty fights (recall his silly complaining about sitting in the back of the plane when he accompanied Clinton somewhere), can't make decisions, and can't control his libido, even when he's leading the prosecution of a President who couldn't control his libido.
Tyrell is right: Gingrich is a boy, just as Clinton was a boy.
Newt is a visionary, but he is no longer electable.
The "boy Clinton" did get elected, and I don't think he was a visionary.
Who do you think is electable? From our side?
Guliani is electable, McCain is electable, Allen might be electable.
Getting past the gauntlet of the GOP primaries is the big question.
Allen might, only because he's virtually unknown.
Either McCain or Guiliani could win the general election, but neither can win the GOP primaries to get that chance.
He's not a 'turncoat' Republican, like so many here. He was bashed by the MSM, and like so often happens, do gooders lacking backbone threw in the towel.
Newt conservative record and speaking clarity on the issues will make him hard to beat. Good chance he'll get my vote.
I don't agree with that. Presidential primaries are far more than just about ideology. They are about a perception as to who has the right stuff to be president, and who can win. Plus, the GOP electorate is not remotely reproduced on this site, as an accurate template.
I make my tentative predictions based more on who I think will be the long distance runner, who has the moxie and the smarts, who will resonant, and who will show up well in the polls down the line, than anything happening now.
As a sidebar, I thought Carter and Dukakis would win the nomination long before most did, just by watching them on the tube. I never was right about Reagan however, and found the Dem field in 2004 so flawed, that I had trouble being objective.
First off, I have to admit to abject ignorance of who R. Emmett Tyrrell Jr. was, prior to reading the article.
As I read the article, it seemed like this "R." guy was beating up on Newt pretty good. ("Mungo no like")
I did take into account that the paper was the Times, not the Post, which relaxed me a bit, but still wondered if "R." wasn't some kind of liberal sleeper, the way he professed a dislike of Clinton, yet kept hitting Newt in the soft underbelly, if not kidneys.
I was both embarrassed (can you be embarrassed if no one knows?) and confused when I checked "R.'s" Conservative credentials after finishing the article.
Anyway, I'm glad someone else thinks a Conservative like "R." is borderline Non compos mentis with this article.
On the potential candidates issue, it's a little early for a dilettante like me to be paying rapt attention. I promise I'll do my homework, study up, and cram just before the primaries. Then I'll vote with my gut feeling, LOL.
As far as Newt goes, I like what I've seen of him on the toob, and I will stop flicking through the channels if he's on. He usually has something interesting to say, and I usually agree with him. Whether he'd make a good President, I don't know.
McCain, I thank him for his service to the country, but it's time to go away already. Take some time to enjoy a retirement, you've earned it.
Rudy, the gut likes him, but I have an series issue with him on the whole gay thing. Enough not to vote for him.
Romney, nope. He might look and act like like a Hollywood President, but I can't name a single accomplishment since he's been Gov. up here. Plus, I have a, perhaps irrational, fear of Mormons (almost black helicopter level), akin to the Protestant's fear of JFK being a Catholic. Maybe I need to "up the voltage" on the electroshock treatments.
Oh, and I almost forgot. Allen. Who? Not on my radar yet.
Finally, back to the author: You might have noticed, and I don't know why, but people whose first name is an initial either put me on guard or annoy me.
An eternal graduate student at a mediocre state university has been playing with bits and pieces of the large ideas of Milton Friedman and like-minded political scientists, for instance, Edward Banfield.
Down the hall is Mr. Clinton. The bits and pieces that he plays with are those of Ira Magaziner or Robert B. Reich. Mr. Gingrich is a more adventuresome graduate student.
Clever analogy.
Tyrrell wrote 2 excellent books in the 80's: Liberal Crack-up and Conservative Crack-up.
That is why the press has been trying to portray this war as "just like Viet Nam." And that is why I don't think Hillary Clinton will win the democrat nomination.
I remember the old 'Big Chicken' and the "Burger Chef" on Roswell Street, when 41 was called the 4-lane (only one around).
If the primaries were as you describe, McCain, not Bush, would have been nominated in 2000.
But, he wasn't, was he?
If you spot a likeable candidate, let me know. :-)
But seriously, likeability is important, but there are other factors that are also prerequisites to winning the nomination. Giuliani, Rice and McCain are lacking in those other factors.
Allen may prove successful, but he has no national name ID. On the other hand, neither did Clinton, two years prior to being elected. It's very early yet.
I'm pushing Newt right now mainly to get him out there, talking about core conservatism and fiscal restraint, so that at least, maybe some other candidates will pick up on such themes.
Gingrich is full of himself and out of touch. He's not going to be the candidate.
Sums it up.
I'd like to know more about Newt divorcing his first wife -- WHILE SHE WAS TERMINALLY ILL WITH CANCER.
I do remember, when asked about it, he refused to discuss it in any way.
Does anybody have information about that divorce?
His first wife, Jackie, obviously did not have terminal cancer, as she is still alive today. Note how these stories become exaggerated.
What is more shocking to me is the fact that they began dating while she was his high school teacher and that they stayed married for 18 years.
It would appear as though some FReepers agree with "R", and are also not of sound mind. LOL
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.