Of course the Kool-Aid-addled GOP sycophants will deny this, call him names, and spittle will fly at their monitors.
No matter. The truth, however inconvenient, can't be stifled.
Posted on 11/10/2006 6:59:08 AM PST by Pokey78
After having watched the majority he engineered in 1994 crumble in this week's elections, former House Speaker Newt Gingrich laid into President Bush and congressional Republicans in an Atlanta appearance Thursday.
Taking questions after a medical forum, the former GOP congressman from Cobb County said four c's — an absence of competence in Republican performance, an absence of candor, corruption and the bad advice of consultants — led to Tuesday's defeat.
But Gingrich saved his strongest words for President Bush's performance at the Wednesday press conference announcing Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld's resignation. Bush told reporters that he had planned to replace Rumsfeld since before the election, despite praising the unpopular defense secretary a week ago and saying he would remain for the duration of his presidency.
"If the president had decided to replace Secretary Rumsfeld he should have told us two weeks ago," Gingrich said. "I think that we would today control the Senate and probably have 10 to15 more House seats. And I found it very disturbing yesterday in the press conference, the explanation that the President gave.
"We need candor, we need directness," said Gingrich, a potential 2008 presidential candidate."We need to understand the threats we faced with are so frightening and so real, the danger that we'll lose two to three American cities so great, that we cannot play games with each other, cannot manipulate each other, we have to have an open and honest dialogue, and I found yesterday's staments at the press conference frankly very disturbing."
He condemned Bush's admission that in making last week's statement about Rumsfeld, he had known he was being misleading.
"It's inappropriate to cleverly come out the day after an election to do something we were told before the election would not be done," Gingrich said. "I think the timing was exactly backwards and I hope the President will rethink how he engages the American people and how he communicates with candor."
He contrasted the euphoria of 1994, when his Contract with America agenda helped ended decades of Democratic rule in the House, with the bitterness of Tuesday night's Democratic sweep.
"I remember what it felt like the night we were at the Cobb Galleria and for the first time in 40 years we won control of the House and (there was) the Contract with America and people were very exicted about welfare reform and cutting taxes and balancing the budget and all those things, and I have to say 12 years later that I'm very disappointed, but if you look at what I've said all year, I'm not surprised."
As for whatRepublicans should do now, he said, "I believe the House and Senate Republicans and the White House need to take a deep breath and think very seriously about this election result, because I think we're at a very important turning point this is either a temporary interruption of what has been a gradually consolidating center-right majority, or this is a breakdown of that center-right majority leading to a significant effort to establish a center-left government majority."
Thank you! After reading FR for these last few days I was wondering if any Reaganites were left besides me.
To the rest of you, Reagan would be appalled
Well you take what you can get. Wasn't McClintock running for Lt. Gov? Is that tied to the governor's ticket or is it separate? Did he win?
I think Rumsfeld and the American people deserved better!!
If the STRATEGY in IRAQ is changed to one of NEGOTIATION with Syria and Iran, all we accomplished will have been done for nothing!!
Yes, I think the biggest failure was the failure to communicate. We know that Bush is not a good communicator, but where was the man/woman in the WH who should have been fixing/ameliorating this problem?
Yes, they were so kind to Reagan.
I keep seeing freepers posting how much they "like Newt" for 2008...and I just don't understand it.
Newt is the ultimate in opportunists...he never misses an opportunity to bash Bush...after holding his finger in the wind, of course.
He should talk less....much less.
It's so ironic to see in USENET how many the blue blooded country, club open, open border republicans blame the hardline right and their righteousness for losing the election are now using those same tactics to attack Newt.
An accurate description of both parties, I'd say.
What about the apathy that keeps the people from issuing cease and desists demands when the government acts unconstitutionally? (mccain-feingold, eminent domain, illegal amnesty, NAFTA, etc.) The government answers to us, remember?
While we are blaming politicians and parties for the Republican loss in the House and Senate, we should remember to stand in front of a mirror and ask the same hard questions.
If it did not matter, why did he quit?
Iraq. That's why we lost. Period.
I guess the Dimmies are having a great day watching us squawking, squealing, and finger pointing.
Newt's pretty good as a pundit but he's not presidential material. He's good for think tanks, etc. but he wouldn't win the presidency.
Did Bush ever smack back at the media? I think he made it easier than it should have been for them to crucify him.
Maybe he was just too nice.
He's not the only one (COUGH!)
No matter. The truth, however inconvenient, can't be stifled.
I guess he forgot about the 98 election. His words may be correct, but they would also apply to why he resigned.
All of the polls were telling them that the single biggest issue pulling the Republicans down was unhappiness with the administration's performance in Iraq.
If Bush had decided to dump Rumsfeld anyway, he should have announced it 6 weeks before the election and the proposed replacement would then be in a position to say he will study ways to change the tactics to make us more successful without having to be specific. Yes, the Rats would have claimed it was just a stunt but it would have been better than not dealing with dissatisfaction over progress in Iraq.
Republicans would NOT have been demoralized, they would have been more energized by a message was that we are going to find a way to be more effective and win in Iraq.
It is a mistake to conclude that because the polls show people are unhappy with the administration's conduct of Iraq that they want to pull out and accept defeat -- a move by Bush to demonstrate that he seriously wants to change tactics to make Iraq successful would have been a big net positive in the elections.
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.