Posted on 01/05/2013 6:36:51 AM PST by Kaslin
This time I should’ve been the one listening.
But listening can be tough sometimes when you’re an analyst and a commentator, and people around the country – listeners, readers, media, candidates, causes, businesses, etc. – come to you to find out why things are happening and what may happen next. Analysis and commentary is one of the few things in life I’m really good at. My car expertise begins and ends with changing a tire. Any toy that comes with the phrase “some assembly required” my kids immediately take to my wife. And when that much-anticipated Zombie apocalypse finally happens I’m going to have to heavily rely upon my gun-toting “doomsday prepper” friends to survive.
But analysis and commentary I can do. It’s how I provide for my family, and since it puts food on my kids’ table regularly somebody must think I’m pretty decent at it. Yet this time I swung and missed.
I am 39-years old so a little young for the Reagan era. I wasn’t legally able to obtain a driver’s license yet when Reagan left office. Like many my age, my conservatism was actually honed by listening to Rush Limbaugh and cheering on Newt Gingrich and the Republican Revolution of 1994. In my era, Gingrich is a transformative figure. He’s still the only man alive to win a national election on conservative principles. He played a part in establishing much of the conservative infrastructure we take for granted nowadays. There are only two authors I ever sought autographed books from: Bo Schembechler and Gingrich.
Yet despite my fan boy crush, I am well aware of his peccadilloes. He’s on his third marriage. He lost the Speaker’s gavel because of a caucus revolt against his leadership. He inexcusably backed Dede Scozzafava. He rightly stood up against the TARP, and then reversed course and backed what I believe may be the most criminal legislation in American history. These are just some of the reasons why several people close to me told me I was making a mistake when I endorsed him for president during the 2012 primary.
Yet I pointed to the fact he is one of the few national figures in the GOP that has the wit and knowledge to effectively communicate what we believe in today’s short-attention-span-society, which I believe is very important to our movement going forward. He was the only candidate last year that was really speaking to what I believe is the biggest threat to liberty and morality in America—judicial supremacy (which is really the judicial oligarchy Jefferson warned us about). And I was also impressed with the way Gingrich was willing to speak openly about his past moral transgressions, including one very blunt joint appearance on my radio show with Donald Wildmon of the American Family Association. As a Christian I’m a sucker for a good redemption story.
However, there’s a reason I have often compared Gingrich to King David in the Bible, beyond the marriage infidelity both have in common. Both were also extraordinarily God-gifted leaders whose legacies were tarnished by their slack of self-discipline. Both were often at their best when pursuing power and at their worse once they obtained it.
While on vacation I was reminded of that comparison when I saw Gingrich say that Republicans should accept the destruction of marriage as “inevitable.” As a historian Gingrich should know better. He should know that marriage and free market economics are the essential societal bedrock components of western civilization, without which liberty isn’t possible. I know firsthand he should know that, because he has communicated right to my face that he does.
In a letter to The Family Leader just 13 months ago, Gingrich said:
“As president I will vigorously enforce the Defense of Marriage Act. I will aggressively defend the constitutionality of DOMA in state and federal courts. I will support a federal constitutional amendment (defending marriage). I will oppose any judicial, bureaucratic, or legislative effort to redefine marriage.”
So which is it, Newt? Do you want to defend marriage or not? Those words do not read like someone who thought destroying marriage was “inevitable?” Did you mean them?
For the past week Gingrich has been rightly urging conservatives to fight the fiscal cliff tax increase. Maybe Gingrich should be urging us to surrender instead, being that our slide towards bankrupt statism seems “inevitable” after all. As a father with three small children at home, I’m looking for leaders who will fight to stop our “inevitable” destruction as a free republic, not come to grips with it. Especially on an issue like marriage, that is 31-4 (89%) at the ballot box.
Gingrich was arguably the most gifted political figure of his era. He could’ve been an American Churchill. Check that, he should have been. Despite all that he has accomplished (which I’m thankful for) his legacy still includes a waste of potential. He could’ve led us out of the wilderness. Instead we’re still circling the mountain (or the drain).
Several of you warned me about this, which is why despite his obvious gifts Gingrich failed not once but twice to coalesce conservatives when he was the presidential frontrunner. Some of you were once bitten and twice shy. Now I get it.
I still have a soft spot for Newt, and he’s still one of the few politicians I’ve met whose intellect I actually respect. But that’s not enough to believe he should hold the highest office of this land. If someone won’t defend marriage, the oldest institution in God’s created order, then what can you count on them to defend when it’s hard?
Those of you that warned me were right. I was wrong. This time I should’ve listened to your analysis.
For the record, Noot never balanced the budget. The Clinton lies about balancing the budget are just as untrue as when Noot tells them.
“He could’ve been an American Churchill.”
To utter “Churchill” and “Gingrich” in the same article makes this a ridiculous article, with the quoted line being the utmost in hilarity.
LLS
Newt ping. He was the best of times and the worst of times .....
Newt just didn’t finish the sentence, that gay marriage IS assuredly inevitable, if Democrats get their way and if Republicans can’t win elections.
But, yes, Newt does have a half dozen or so, bloopers in his career.
An astounding number, in a man of consequence and controversy. /s
Can someone explain to me why Churchill goes to war when the Nazis invade Poland but acquiesces to the Stalinist takeover of Poland in 1945? Is the explanation related to Churchill’s being defeated as prime minister in 1945? Socialists made their biggest gains in England against Churchill that year.
Deace admits he was wrong this one time? Gee, thanks, Steve. I'll forget all about the other times you helped screw things up. Now get lost... and take Newt with you while you're at it.
That shows just how putrid the republican bench was in this past election.
Nobody - and I mean NOBODY - who was on said bench in 2012 should even be allowed anywhere near it in 2016. I extend the same warning with regard to the con/neocon/paleocon punditry who made the modern CIA look like absolute clairvoyants by comparison.
(Keep Dick Morris... but do the exact opposite of what he recommends. Works great.)
Mr. niteowl77
I remember Newt proposing the elimination of the PBS. Not in 2012, but back in the 90’s. He was right, then, and now, about a great many things. I think that he is virtually alone in Federal politics in understanding the intended function of the Federal Government, and completely alone in having even the tiniest interest in seeing that it function as intended.
You can say “He’s a show-boater!” or whatever. I think he has little else to do, now.
In 1994, I think he was a real revolutionary. You can believe what you want, but I think he intended to keep the Contract with America. He was in over his head, however, and undone in the end by the likes of Boner (sp) in Congress who were only interested in the power.
Oh, and you can spare me the re-telling of his marital problems (as if they are unknown). I think it is completely appropriate to judge a person for their personal failings, and I count his against him. I just think he was the only person at the time (1994 / 2012) with even some of the right ideas to solve America’s most pressing problems, and that outweighs his marital failings with me.
Yea, he has his warts but his strengths outweigh them, especially against the other Pubbies. Just imagine if we had Newt as Speaker of the House right now.
Churchill was not PM when GB went to war to honor their pact with Poland.
At the conferences for conclusion the US was influenced by Communists like Hiss and the Brits had much less influence.
In 1945 Churchill/Atlee did not have a vote. Britain was broke and in the process of turning free her colonies. FDR made the decision to hold Patten west of Berlin, thus allowing the Soviets their fill of rape and pillage.
Roosevelt absolutely did not want to fight another war. Truman inherited this position and didn’t have the nerve or weight within the Democratic party to do anything other.
FDR gave us the post-war world. Unless you were in Eastern Europe, in the long run it worked out.
Newt is an attention ho. Period. He was on Morning Joe last week, yukking it up with all the libs on the show and generally agreeing with everything they said. Newt is out for Newt. He is Clinton lite. Finger in the wind.
In 20/20 hindsight, I think he would have fared far worse than Romney, as would have the entire conservative bench.
*Dons flame proof underwear*
Who did accomplish stuff.
A lot of stuff, as many Freepers already know.
Here's just one that's not talked about much: He was the chief figure who killed the 90's version of ObamaCare, HillaryCare. Here's Gingrich & his allies on the House floor in 1994, demolishing the Dems on this subject: http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/55279-1
For some reason my link didn’t link. Let me try again:
http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/55279-1
Don’t leave Karl Rove out!!! He was every bit as accurate as Dick Morris!!
that’s not enough to believe he should hold the highest office of this land. If someone won’t defend marriage, the oldest institution in God’s created order, then what can you count on them to defend when it’s hard?
___________________________________________________
Is this about Willard ???
Willard the father of gay marriage in MASS...
Willard the guy who was silent about the gays attacking Chik-Fil-A and refused to participate in the Chick-Fil-A Day...
Willard the guy who pushed for gays in the military...
Willard the guy who employeed a gay to head up part of his 2012 campaign for POTUS
and then fired him when Conservatives objected he found it might not be as politically expediant as he first thought...
Sigh. We will never know. While I agree that if Newt wasn't able to best Romney in the primary, his odds in the general were long. However, I tend to think his bold, passionate, unashamed and articulate defense of conservatism would have won the day and made 0bama crazy. He certainly would have brought all of the important issues out and challenged 0bama on all of them with force, unlike Mitty who played rope-a-dope after the first debate, thinking, and being advised, that was a good strategy. Meh.
I don’t think Newt would have fared worse, but it would have been totally different. In the very least, it would have been a knock down drag out ideological and philosophical campaign, because it was the “good Newt” that was campaigning (at least until the Florida debates) and it would have been the “good Newt” that got the nomination.
Of course, he’s back to the “bad Newt” now at times. That’s Newt.
To utter “Churchill” and “Gingrich” in the same article makes this a ridiculous article, with the quoted line being the utmost in hilarity.
On the contrary...if you look deeply into the political history of Churchill, before WWII you will find a very very tarnished individual, not averred to cutting back door deals and sucking the rug out from under those with whom he disagreed. Even FDR fell under his spell.
My problem since the election is discovering we have this huge conundrum now: Our country has passed a line where the majority could be convinced by Reagan himself that the values we once stood for are important enough to return to.
1. The media is too powerful, and has NOT been neutralized and until we figure out how to beat them, we're screwed. They have learned how to take out the likes of Reagan, they have it down.
2. The American culture has crossed a line where free stuff is welcomed and embraced long term, success and the work ethic is vilified.
3. Conservatives (of all stripes) have become a circular firing squad, vilifying other potential candidates, and taking their ball home when their chosen candidate loses.
4. The Academic/Hollywood/media complex has stolen the hearts and minds of the next generation(s), and unlike in the past people aren't waking up and changing back as they see the false paradigm.
Yoiks, I'm even depressing myself....need to stop.....:-)
Nice find. I too still have a soft spot for Newt, and he’s still one of the few politicians whose intellect I actually respect.
I'm curious. Do you think Newt listens to anyone? Does he have advisors that assist in his strategy? He clearly blew it in Florida in his response to Mitty's all-out assault.
I wasn't sure you were around, kindly consider and address my most recent post to Servant of the Cross as a discussion point.
Breitbart was fond of quoting that "politics swims downstream from culture", I think it's my main point. A line has been crossed, one that will take more than a political fix.
Churchill was undercut by FDR in the Tehran and Yalta talks. FDR thought he could charm Stalin, and Stalin played the ailing FDR like a fiddle. There is a really good book by Lynn Olson and Stanley Cloud on the contributions of the Polish Squadrons fighting under RAF command in the Battle of Britain called “Question of Honor, Kosciusko Squadron.” It gets into to the betrayal of the Poles, largely orchestrated by FDR.
That might have gotten you banned this time last year. Having said that, I agree wholeheartedly with your statement.
Franklin Delano Roosevelt.
However, I think the reality of $1 trillion unsustainable deficits and unashamed Lefties insanely wanting to just spend more, that obviously doesn't work and won't ever work, is known by at least 50%+1, who will go out to vote in November, 2014 and give the House and Senate back to the opposition party, assuming we have leaders that can articulate a coherent and passionate case.
We have been successful on a targeted state and local level, which could be replicated nationally.
:-)
I know.
LLS
Perhaps this is the darkest hour and we can still prevail, maybe I'm just being a Puddleglum, it's just so hard to believe we can extricate ourselves from the institutionalization that has happend and is happening in the next 2 years:
No strong leadership, a foe determined to destroy conservatives, a foe with power who is determined to make us a crony socialist nation and destroy our founding principles, the enshrinement of Bambicare and its myriad of landmine regulations and taxes, the new debt being piled up daily, the free stuff mentality, the low information voters, the successful villiying of business excellence and free markets.
Auughh!!!!
*Off to find humorous books, stand up routines, and movies*
Newt Gingrich is a genius. Period. He could have been great. The personal failures did him in.
My problem since the election is discovering we have this huge conundrum now: Our country has passed a line where the majority could be convinced by Reagan himself that the values we once stood for are important enough to return to.
If Reagan could even win today, it would probably be by a whisper - and he'd be savaged by our own side for not being conservative enough. Conservatives always believed there was a silent majority of decent, traditional people that would step up and vote the right way when the chips are down - that silent majority probably no longer exists. Worse, the masses that don't turn out, pollsters call them "adults", are probably even MORE supportive of populist left policies that Obama pushes than the actual population that voted. You can see this in any poll these days. "Adults" are far more supportive of Obama than "Likely Voters".
Things look pretty bleak for America right now. The future seems to be with Asia while the West declines. Asia is largely throwing off the shackles of socialism and is growing rapidly. A massive middle class is rising in India, China, etc. It won't be long till the productive people in the US and Europe start fleeing to the better business environments in Asia.
And no matter what ... our "home" is not here. Even if it is 'A Long Way Home' .
I wish I could stand up and say, “You’re wrong!”
But, alas........
All of us here need to make a pact with one another to talk each other off of the ledge when necessary..........
:-)
I'm not giving up, I just need a hot bath and a massage........
With the help of communist spies within FDR's administration, Alger Hiss comes to mind.
Ahhhhh......blue skies.....the sun is shining......a great cup of coffee.....let’s see what’s going on with Free Republic..............oh, the world is ending. Well, couldn’t happen on a prettier day.
I'm not ready to give up, it's too important, I just don't see an answer yet.
Prayer. Deep thinking. Tactical changes. New leadership from the right people.
We'll see.
When has the toe sucker ever been right in his predictions? Never
Newt : “Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich said Friday that the upcoming showdown over the debt ceiling isn’t a political winner for House Republicans, but dubbed it a “dead loser.”
“They’ve got to find, in the House, a totally new strategy,” Gingrich said on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe.” “Everybody’s now talking about, ‘Oh, here comes the debt ceiling.’ I think that’s, frankly, a dead loser. Because in the end, you know, it’s gonna happen. The whole national financial system is going to come in to Washington and on television and say: ‘Oh my God, this will be a gigantic heart attack, the entire economy of the world will collapse. You guys will be held responsible.’ And they’ll cave. ”
Newt Gingrich warns GOP on debt ceiling(1/4/2013, Newt video on Politico)
Sounds likely, Newt should know.
Contrary to talk radio mythology Newt caved to Clinton after three government shutdowns and early 2006 gave him (Clinton) the CR he demanded , then Clinton got easily re-elected.
This type of thing only works if the other side thinks they will get the blame. Doesn't the budget run out at about the same time? Obama is going to want lots of extended spending there. Why not tie the debt ceiling to a budget, and other spending bills?
whats the point ??? the PR will mount that the 'R's are being obstructionists, nevermind the lack of a budget from the sinate for 3 yrs...
almost better at this point to get one of those cardboard publishers clearinghouse checks, march up onto the capitol steps, and present the signed, blank check to bambam and proclaim that from this day *forward*, its his baby to do what he wants...let it crash and burn 100% on him...
anything else is going to be a repeated losing game in the media, and just pisses *us* off over and over...
During the peak of Noooooooooooooot mania in last year's Presidential primary, anyone who pointed out this fact to history revisionists was swiftly attacked by legions of Newt fans and threatened with banning.
Unfortunately for them, most FReepers are old enough to remember what happened in the 90s. Newt had squandered away all his authority by 1996 and his approval ratings were in the toilet by late '98 (and had been for quite some time), making him a national joke and punching bag for the RATs to tarnish any Republican by tying them to "Newt Gingrich"
Clinton's re-election was bad enough (everyone though he would be a one-termer in 1994) but it was completely disgraceful that we actually LOST a net total of 5 seats during the '98 midterm election when Clinton and the Dems were embroiled in Monicagate. Unfortunately for us, "beloved conservative leader" Newt was busy boinking mistress Callista behind the scenes.
Yes, culture is a part of the equation, but I am not sure it is necessarily the primary factor. Socialism is like a drug that infects and poisons populations that fall for it. It's an easy sell for politicians, running as Santa Claus always is. Even many culturally conservative populations in South America, parts of Asia, etc, have fallen under the spell of socialism and wrecked their economies. Don't forget, FDR won 4 times (3 times before our entry into the war) running on radical, far left populist policies that Obama could only dream of. Take a look at FDR's proposed second bill of rights of 1944 which was pure socialism - and a much more socially conservative public than we have now approved of him and his economic ideas.
The problem is, starting at the federal level, the constitution simply does not do enough to prevent socialism. One day when our society collapses and the good guys are around to rebuild, the new constitution will need to very, very, very specifically write out any opportunity for socialism to creep in. If the states want to try socialist experiments, fine (they have to compete with one another), but it can not be allowed to happen at the federal level.
But I thought the whole idea was to get House Rs to be the ‘obstructionists’. So afterward when we claim the the media made Rs look like ‘obstructionists’ it sounds kind of lame.
This is the problem. If being painted ‘obstructionists’ is bad then from the start the goal should be to paint the other side as it while doing it, not afterward when its too late (then complain about the media again). Dems know this.
I have heard a few Dems actually complain that they are worried that Democrats might get a bad deal from the debt limit fight. Not saying my hopes are up though.
I think you are talking about exactly a year ago January 2012. The hopes were running high back then that Newt could win a few states from Romney so it was best just to tone it down here on him for about a month till that hope ran its course, which happened fast.
But even long before that I would get a few who would swear to me that Newt won a huge victory back then and was a role model for all other Speakers,
but I still remember those days and after Newt lost that fight Fed gubment employees I knew here who got paid for all three shutdown weeks off, and another whole free week for the late 1995 blizzard too, all on top of their regular generous leave. Yes, the shutdowns cost more money in the end. This made Republicans look like fools at the time.
Newt had a problem that he would open his mouth and say stuff that would give weapons to Dems to beat him in these fights,
Newt was always doing that.
If you are going to win a shutdown fight you must convince voters that its the Dem who is doing it, he is being unreasonable, petty, etc, you are being responsible, doing the best for the country, willing to go halfway. Its a stage,
Now in this case some of the taxes going up is an advantage House Republicans have in this fight that they didn't have in 2011.
“You got your way on taxes Mr President now its time to cut spending, You have taxed this country enough. tax and tax and tax, that is the only thing Dems know. ”,
see??? It works much better if Obama actually raised some taxes DUHHH!
2011 and 2012 were the misread delusional years for many Republicans :
“Americans will come out in mass and demand more tax cuts for 'job creators' (ie Mitt, Buffet, Forbes) , together with increased military spending while all other spending like entitlements are cut (except those right NOW >55) , and Dems wont come out and vote especially that 47%, and Obama probably wont run, and 2013 this country will be a conservative Mecca”
Well it didn't happen, that was never going happen.
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.