Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: traviskicks
No, I do not mean politically.

I think that Newt's tone is to abrasive to be in a "front-line" leadership position. Some people are good at that and others aren't, Newt is better behind the scenes. (For what it's worth, I think the 'Rats will eventually find out that Hitlery is the exact same way.) The Speaker of the House NEEDS to have a cordial or at least civil working relationship with the President, regardless of political differences. I think that Newt brought too much of his personal animosity toward Klintoon into the 1995 budget stand-off and it blew up in his face big time.

I think it's better to let Newt "lay the foundation" and advise behind the scenes. He should let someone else be the frontline leader.

15 posted on 11/13/2004 1:31:11 PM PST by wagglebee (Memo to sKerry: the only think Bush F'ed up was your career)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies ]


To: wagglebee
I think that Newt's tone is to abrasive to be in a "front-line" leadership position. Some people are good at that and others aren't, Newt is better behind the scenes...

That's the way I see it- Newt was and is a superb tactician- I was present in the early nineties when he was working up to the Contract, and his moves were brilliant. Once in the forefront, however, he did not do well. Some of that was due to the MSM, which, while we knew it was biased, we were blissfully unaware of how pervasive that bias was. But I agree with you- he's best when working in the background and directing.

24 posted on 11/13/2004 1:55:08 PM PST by backhoe ("We met at Dawn- and destiny Prevailed...")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies ]

To: wagglebee

"I think it's better to let Newt "lay the foundation" and advise behind the scenes. He should let someone else be the frontline leader."
---

You may be right about this. But I do think as someone previously mentioned, the 94 'coup' is one of the most significant changes in the political landscape in the 20th Century. To what degree Newt was personally responsible for it can be debated, but I do think he is not a 'status quo' type leader and those types of people are the ones that change history in meaningful ways. There is a quote that 'history is a smooth stubborn continuous thing, jerked only by the actions of impeteous men'.

I think it is possible that much of your belief that Newt was 'stubborn and confrontational' may lie in the media's portrayal of him. I think the average person has a negative perception of Newt becasue of media bias. Similar to how the Media portrays the 'neo-conservatives', Rumsfeld, Ashcroft etc...

A few years ago I actually started to believe that the worst the MSM portraryed someone, the more intelligent, brave, principled, and conservative they tended to be. So, I dunno... as of now I would support Newt in a public leadership position, but am open to the possibiltiy that he works best behinds the scene - which is what he is doing now. Especially in Health care.

I was disapointed by his support for this Medicaid monstrosity. He never made the reasons for his support clear (or at least the media didn't give much coverage too them). I think he gained political capital with the Bush admin for his support. But if he sacrificed prinicipal for political capital then he loooses my respect.


32 posted on 11/13/2004 2:18:17 PM PST by traviskicks (http://www.neoperspectives.com/summary.htm)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies ]

To: wagglebee
think that Newt brought too much of his personal animosity toward Klintoon into the 1995 budget stand-off and it blew up in his face big time.

It blew up in *Newt's* face, yes, and sure Clinton was reelected (Bob Dole was no threat and we all knew it), impeachment won out but removal failed but the Republicans have maintained or extended their majority except for when that fraud Jimbo Jeffords turned traitor. In terms of domestic policy, Clinton was prohibited from doing any serious damage and, amazingly, there were even a few balanced budgets. Tragically, Clinton was not prevented from undermining our national security (9-11) even though Republicans harped about military cuts, intelligence cuts, over deployments, etc. endlessly.

Further, Bush won in 2000, defied tradition and inceased the majority in 2002, and won *huge* in 2004 despite the Democrat's best efforts. How have the Republicans been hurt in the past 10 years due to that budget stand-off? Thanks to the 1994 Republican sweep, the country was generally hurt by only things that the Executive controlled: national security, foreign policy. Something might be said, however, that Congressional oversight was lacking on intelligence especially since it was so concerned with impeachment.

Clinton was great at winning tactical victories for himself but he ultimately failed to do anything for his party. Now it looks like they're on the verge of moving further left (Howard Dean, Michael Moore).

36 posted on 11/13/2004 2:31:21 PM PST by newzjunkey (San Diego, Kleptocrasy by the Sea. -- VOID the Illegal Mayoral "Election")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies ]

To: wagglebee

You're exactly right. Newt is great at what he does. He doesn't do it all but rather he has his niche.


61 posted on 11/13/2004 6:44:10 PM PST by plain talk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


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