Posted on 07/21/2006 4:35:35 AM PDT by IrishMike
The casual TV viewer has probably noticed two things during the past few days — there’s a war in the Middle East, and Newt Gingrich is commenting on it. Gingrich has been a ubiquitous analyst on the war — ubiquity being one of the tireless, outsized former House speaker’s favorite qualities. In between appearances in his role as a commentator for the Fox News Channel, Gingrich announced on Meet the Press that we are in the midst of World War III. A few days later, Hezbollah declared that it welcomed World War III, nicely capturing the moment: Simultaneous with its shooting war with Israel, Hezbollah is in a war of words with Newt Gingrich.
The old conventional wisdom about Gingrich was that we wouldn’t have him to kick around anymore. The new conventional wisdom is that he’s back, and he’s doing the kicking. Ousted by his own party after its losses in the 1998 midterm elections, Gingrich has reestablished himself as a party leader through sheer intellectual energy. He has had something intelligent to say about literally every issue of the hour, from health care to Katrina to the war on terror. “He has helped himself immensely — he’s all over the place,” says former Republican National Committee Chairman Ed Gillespie.
They seek me here,
They seek me there,
The Frenchies seek me everywhere.
- Am I in heaven?
— Am I in hell?
Me, the dammed, elusive Pimpernel.''
Just..... go back to work.
lol
Like Newt OR Not, what he say about this being the start of World War III is dead on. Also interestingly enough, Rick Santorum gave an awesome speach to the National Press Club yesterday that also pretty much spelled out the same conclusion.
We can pretend it isn't as bad as it really is, but the enemy is coming nonetheless. He is focused and persistent and we could loose this war. I say let's fight it now, because I don't want my sons to have to.
Someone recently said the Islamist Fascist have the "will" but not the "weapons", and we have the "weapons" but not the "will". Whichever side get's the other part first wins.
Well OKAY!!!!!!
You first Rex.
He's a very bright man, but seriously flawed. His inability to deal with the women in his life in a moral and faithful manner is analogous to his inability to deal with the opposition party (or even people in his own party). I think he is unable to negotiate on a human level - sort of a geek with no people skills whether dealing with people in Congress or people in his life. He's got good ideas and articulates them well, but when the going gets tough, he quits because he doesn't know on a gut level how face-to-face interaction works. I think most of his mistakes in Congress are directly attributable to that personality flaw.
So, no, I wouldn't vote for him for president because I don't think he's up to the job. (I would reconsider if Hillary was on the other side. . . he's flawed, she's actively evil.)
http://www.realchange.org/gingrich.htm
Good point. I think a Cabinet-level position for Newt would be ideal. (With some good staff to act as buffers.)
Bingo. Why the GOP isn't shouting that from the rooftops is beyond me.
If he wants to be president does he understand that even a weakened president like Harry Truman was able to influence who succeeded him as the Democratic nominee in 1952? I am not sure that Karl Rove will sit out the 2008 primary and general elections. Karl has to be unhappy with Newt.
Trashing Bush only pleases Moderates and Democrats. As Miss Marple clearly points out we Bush supporters never forget.
Who votes in Republican primaries? I don't think Newt has asked himself that question. If he has, he has gotten the wrong answer.
If his goal is to be a force in the next Republican administration, "I failed to support the last Republican Administration." does not look good on your resume no matter who wins the election.
The first rule of being a force in your parties administration from a think tank position, is to point out how to make things better. Newt points out what he thinks is wrong. Most dumb people know better than to do that. And if a president did follow a policy advocated by Newt in one of his books, the president would be reluctant to give Newt the credit.
That leaves his future role to be that of a think tanker whom the media can call on to throw some a rocks at Republicans.
Newt has fallen a long way from Speaker of the House. He is not likely to ever climb back into respectability. His actions prove to me he is clueless about how to get that done.
Yeah, to women who aren't his wife. To the buffet table. And to any open mic or camera he can find. Newt has no chance. He's perfect where he is: pontificating.
Not true. He has a daughter, Kathy Lubbers, from his first marriage.
By your measure, Bill Clinton and Jimmy Carter (1 marriage each) were better "conservatives" than Ronald Reagan (2 marriages).
If you had read my post, I was worried about his family values not conservative attributes. A person who sticks with a marriage could have better family values...remember I said could. What is up with you anyway? I don't understand why you would not want the best possible candidate that we can have. Why do you want to settle for mediocre. We should at least try for perfection in our candidates.
I guess you didn't vote for President Bush. Who wants Mr. Rodgers in the White House making life and death decisions? Have a beautiful day in the neighborhood.
Yes I did. I don't know if you know this but President Bush never divorced left his wife with cancer, etc. So your point was quite invalid. Second I am wanting the best candidate. What does Mr. Rodgers have to do with wanting a candidate who believes in family values. Why do you want an immoral President?
It cost Bush five points in the election. It turned an easy win for Bush into a race too close to call. But DUI is not cheating on a wife that does not condone cheating.
Gingrich can not stop his exes from going on TV to trash him night and day. His ex wife Marianne is one ticked woman. She would be glad to nail his rump on national TV. She got a big divorce settlement. And there was a provision that she could not discuss the reasons for the divorce. All she has to say is "I cannot legally comment on what Newt may or may not have done to me."
Can you hear the Media screaming "NO man should be elected president who will not allow his ex wife to tell the truth about him!"
How about this for a commerical for a former girl friend.
Newt Gingrich told me when we started going together that he had made many mistakes. That he had cheated on other women... but that was all in the past. He said he was not lying to me. He was going to be true. I fell for it until I learned that Newt cheated on me too. He lied to me. Now Newt is telling you that he is a changed man. That is the same lie he told me. No one told me Newt Gingrich was a liar. But I am telling you that he is. Are you going to believe his lies too?
Follow that by at least 3 other woman appearing on the news saying Newt told them the same lies. Every thing he said in the campaign from that point on would be qualified in the news by "How do we know Newt is not lying":
Newt is toast. He is just playing for attention. If he isn't then he is one very stupid politician.
Newt is a brilliant guy and a real policy-wonk, but I just don't think he is electable on a national scale. I would love to see a debate between Newt and Hillary, though. Newt would mop the floor with her. Perhaps a cabinet post is in his future.
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.