Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

To: Fred

Let me offer another opinion on Newt.

For the last decade, Newt has been wandering in the wilderness - trying to stay both relevant and solvent. That makes for strange bedfellows as different interests align and then break apart.

I wrote him off after the global warming episode. That was really stupid. Then his position on single payer insurance just nailed the lid on tighter. Yes, it is the “humane” thing to do, but no nation can afford it.

I regretted it but I felt that we did not need another political opportunist... even a really smart one.

I first met Newt back in the 80’s when I heard him give an answer on problems in education and offer a plan for teaching kids to read that just nailed it. I thought, wow, if that guy ever runs for president, I’m on board. Then, his career peaked or crashed and he went off the radar.

After the Nancy Pelosi debacle, I didn’t pay any attention to him until these debates of the last few months. Romney was slick, but, too slick. Newt was the “adult” in the room.

I have come to the belief that he is a the right choice for right now because he really does know the right answers.

With his deep, deep sense of history and this being his moment, I do not believe that he would veer to the left. If anything, I think that he realizes that we are out of time and a historically great president is needed.

To save the Republic, we need someone who understands the system, has a perspective that allows them to make tough decisions and is to be able to communicate the reasons why and squelch the opposition. It is a rare ability... and he has it.

There is not another person on the horizon who can do what we need.

That said, out of pure self interest, I’m going to forgive his sins and get behind him.


55 posted on 12/01/2011 8:34:35 AM PST by Ron/GA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


To: Ron/GA; CharlesWayneCT; Fred
At the end of the day the Tea Party will embrace Newt Gingrich. To assume that the Tea Party was about a checklist of conservative principles is to misunderstand the energizing impulse that created and sustains the tea party. The tea party is aroused because they feel, quite reasonably, that their country is slipping away and the danger is not remote but imminent and catastrophic.

They did not gather in their millions across the village green of America because the Congress did not put the decimal point in the right place, the Tea Party exists out of the conviction that they must save the Republic.

So they seek policies toward that end and those policies inevitably are conservative policies because conservatism is patriotic and prudent. But they are not conservatives who seek conservative policies, they are patriots who seek national salvation.

When they judge a presidential candidate they will not measure him against a conservative matrix, they are going to ask themselves whether he can save the country. In other words, above all they want a man of vision, a man who can articulate that vision, a man who can carry the country.

Gov. Perry simply disqualified himself from that description. Newt Gingrich among all the candidates alone possesses the potential to be great. He could also be a great disappointment. But we must take the chance because a business as usual president simply is not the man for the times. There is a sense that this is a time of destiny for Gingrich.

To offer the following observation is knowingly to court the cheap and easy rebuke but it nevertheless must be said: the American people are awakening to the danger which is buffeting them from abroad and from within. They fear for their country and for their children. They are turning to a man whom they would not otherwise consider normal times. The historical parallel is Winston Churchill in 1939-1940.

This is not to say that Gingrich is in the same class with Churchill but the resemblance is remarkable. Both are possessed of the highest intellect, both are successful authors, both have vast parliamentary experience, both are seemingly controversial, both are accused of being fountains of bad as well as great ideas, both are masters of oratory, both have been cast into the wilderness and come back, both have been accused of ideological impurity, Churchill having crossed the aisle twice, both have farsighted vision.

England would never have turned to Winston Churchill if it were not the hour of her greatest peril. Newt Gingrich is not Winston Churchill but he might just be Margaret Thatcher. The rest of the field cannot even compete in the same league. If we entrust Gingrich with the office and he missteps at least we will have taken our best shot. It is not ideological purity that we need to save the country but leadership, even charisma. We have no choice but to take the risk of nominating Gingrich just as England had no choice but to turn to the one man that could save her.

This is why The Tea Party is able to embrace Gingrich and this is why the base of the Republican Party is even now embracing Gingrich, and this is why he will prevail in the election. It is not just a matter of eliminating the other candidates, that is not why England turned to Churchill, there were, after all, other men of substance but there was no one else who held the promise that Churchill held to save the world-and no one carried such a risk as Churchill.

They had to assume the risk to get Churchill.


158 posted on 12/01/2011 9:53:33 AM PST by nathanbedford ("Attack, repeat, attack!" Bull Halsey)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson