GOP Candidates' Squabbling Is 'Dumb,' Gingrich Says

New York Sun ^ | 2/16/07 | Matthew Chayes

[RockinRight]

Said the squabbler in chief who is the most disloyal Republican bar none.

You seem to have a major disdain for candidates who are CONSERVATIVE and NOT named Giuliani.

[RockinRight]

He went soft on the war. He was never strong on fiscal issues, and is honestly about as boring as the day is long.

I used to like him too. He's a great pro-lifer and is a good man, but NOT a good candidate.

[RockinRight]

Newt is doing the right thing. Obeying the 11th commandment while not being afraid to point out where improvements can be made.

He's also not going to win any friends (or votes) by going on television screaming that Hillary is an a$$faced socialist ho-bag piece of crap (even if it would be an accurate statement.)

[Peach]

That's not true, although you're free to continue to mischaracterize what I've said about Newt.

His double talk has been discussed on FR quite frequently and I often say he's brilliant but...

And you may wish to consider why it is that his negatives are so high among Republicans. It's likely that they see the same things I do - his lack of loyalty and his flip flops in the hopes that we forgot what he said previously about various issues.

[RockinRight]

Even if all that's true, he's STILL better than any of the other hopefuls in the GOP.

[68 grunt]

... Every time you say nice stuff about liberals or liberal policies, I like you less.

Newt nailed you! Whadda dumb way to spend your life.

[B Knotts]

As well, he's become Hillary's new best friend and that alone is suspicious.

Oh, please. He does one media event with her on health care a few years ago, and he's constantly attacked for it.

Hillary is attacking him as the chief bogeyman of the right in her stump speech. Hardly a friendly thing to do.

[Peach]

Just google NewtGingrich+HillaryClinton to see how wrong you are.

They have appeared a far more than one event together. LOL

This article makes clear they have worked on a "number of projects" together.

http://www.iht.com/articles/2005/05/13/news/clinton.php

[Texas Federalist]

Can't vote for Rudy / Gingrich, although I'd vote for Gingrich / Rudy. The top of the ticket is the only one that matters in practice. The VP does not do anything.

[GSlob]

No one is impugning [and where did you get it?]. A captain has sufficiently small command so he could still do some [sometimes a lot] of management work. The presidency, OTOH, is beyond the CNO level, and has to deal in sweeping generalities. Compare Reagan [charismatic leader who delegated away [almost] everything except the leadership proper, i.e. the inspirational/projectional part] with Carter - nitpicking manager [up to and including the tennis courts at WH],who never had any idea of what the leadership is, and correspondingly failed at it.
I could tell you a small but interesting story on it: in '84 Reagan had a campaign stop in Rochester NY. The event was held at the local ice hockey stadium, some 12000 people; he was far away and projected on a large screen. Some lefties on the crowd periphery tried to unfurl some posters of protest. These baboons were spontaneously [and coming from former USSR, I know how the organized form looks like] - so, they were spontaneously manhandled by the crowd, and not by the security. Reagan was too far away [and had sufficiently poor eyesight] to even notice them, let alone to react to them. There were no orders, and it was not done by the plainclothesmen. Being there, I happened to see it up close. This was the leadership stuff in its rough, primeval state - ability to inspire [even if somewhat misguided] devotion.
And this is precisely what is needed in the president, for scheduling White house tennis courts, policy details and other such could be delegated to others. Once properly "inspired", these others would catch the orders as if by telepathy, even if no orders are given, and would do just what would be expected. In a sense, being immersed in the leadership field, they tune to its proper wavelength and act accordingly. It is not easy to generate such a field, but when one could do it, it could be extremely efficient. Otherwise at that level one will bogged down in detail, like carter was.

[BJClinton]

Add me to the Newt '08 pin list please. The only candidate I actually like right now.

[B Knotts]

OK...you're added!

[CommerceComet]

I'm not sure of the presidency, but a Cheneyesque position of Executive VP might be optimal for Gingrich.

Newt's name on the ballot even as VP would create problems. I would rather have Newt as Chief of Staff where his ideas would be influential but his name wouldn't be on the ballot. Newt's best role would be behind-the-scenes but I am not sure his ego would permit it.

[JB in Whitefish]

I think they call that a "cabinet"...eh...???

[GSlob]

"I think they call that a "cabinet"...eh...???"
The "field" of leadership normally spreads much further than the "cabinet" level. Ollie North, for example, was a junior aide. And the middle aged men and women who roughed up these protesters in '84 were not the executive branch employees at all. This is the beauty of such "field": those in it tend to "resonate" and [usually] to do the right thing without even being ordered to do so. Thus a leader saves himself tremendous amount of time and effort which otherwise would have been wasted on actually managing those already "resonating" - and could indeed focus on the greater picture.

[JCEccles]

So Gingrich is criticizing candidates who criticize candidates?

Go away Newt. This is how we choose candidates.

[ChiTownBearFan]

I think that was true 6 years ago, not anymore.

[ChiTownBearFan]

I think that was true 6 years ago, not anymore.