Skip to comments.
GOP Candidates' Squabbling Is 'Dumb,' Gingrich Says
New York Sun ^
| 2/16/07
| Matthew Chayes
Posted on 02/15/2007 9:18:48 PM PST by B Knotts
A former House speaker who helped engineer a sweeping Republican takeover of Congress in 1994, Newt Gingrich, yesterday criticized two of his party's 2008 presidential candidates for internecine squabbling this week.
"The idea that these campaigns have to be this utterly stupid and destructive," Mr. Gingrich told an audience at the Women's National Republican Club in Midtown. "I saw something the other day where Brownback is attacking Romney. I mean, what a dumb way to spend your life."
Mr. Gingrich was referring to a series of press release barbs traded by Senator Brownback of Kansas and Governor Romney of Massachusetts questioning each other's anti-abortion bona fides — a credential long considered essential to clinching the Republican nomination.
Mr. Gingrich also said candidates shouldn't spend two years running for president. For his part, the former congressman said he would decide by September whether to launch his own White House bid and join the crowded field.
...
As Mr. Gingrich glad-handed, posed for photos, and autographed books yesterday before his speech, dozens of members of the audience urged him to seek the nation's highest office.
"The first five or six didn't get to me, but by no. 60, it is very humbling to have a lot of different people walk up and say, 'You ought to run for president,' and say it with a passion," he said.
(Excerpt) Read more at nysun.com ...
TOPICS: Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: brownback; newt; romney
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-78 last
To: Peach
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.
61
posted on
02/16/2007 6:47:51 AM PST
by
RockinRight
(When Chuck Norris goes to bed at night, he checks under the bed for Jack Bauer.)
To: msnimje
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.
62
posted on
02/16/2007 6:49:05 AM PST
by
RockinRight
(When Chuck Norris goes to bed at night, he checks under the bed for Jack Bauer.)
To: EternalVigilance
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.)
63
posted on
02/16/2007 6:50:57 AM PST
by
RockinRight
(When Chuck Norris goes to bed at night, he checks under the bed for Jack Bauer.)
To: RockinRight
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.
64
posted on
02/16/2007 6:56:46 AM PST
by
Peach
(The Clintons pardoned more terrorists than they captured or killed.)
To: Peach
Even if all that's true, he's STILL better than any of the other hopefuls in the GOP.
65
posted on
02/16/2007 6:58:02 AM PST
by
RockinRight
(When Chuck Norris goes to bed at night, he checks under the bed for Jack Bauer.)
To: EternalVigilance
... 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.
66
posted on
02/16/2007 7:02:41 AM PST
by
68 grunt
(3/1 India, 3rd, 68-69, 0311)
To: Peach
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.
67
posted on
02/16/2007 8:02:15 AM PST
by
B Knotts
(Newt '08!)
To: B Knotts
68
posted on
02/16/2007 8:04:27 AM PST
by
Peach
(The Clintons pardoned more terrorists than they captured or killed.)
To: ChiTownBearFan
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.
To: JB in Whitefish
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.
70
posted on
02/16/2007 11:11:50 AM PST
by
GSlob
To: B Knotts
Add me to the Newt '08 pin list please. The only candidate I actually like right now.
71
posted on
02/16/2007 11:24:26 AM PST
by
BJClinton
(articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy)
To: BJClinton
72
posted on
02/16/2007 11:26:26 AM PST
by
B Knotts
(Newt '08!)
To: GSlob
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.
To: GSlob
I think they call that a "cabinet"...eh...???
To: JB in Whitefish
"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.
75
posted on
02/16/2007 5:33:42 PM PST
by
GSlob
To: B Knotts
So Gingrich is criticizing candidates who criticize candidates?
Go away Newt. This is how we choose candidates.
76
posted on
02/16/2007 5:36:28 PM PST
by
JCEccles
To: Texas Federalist
I think that was true 6 years ago, not anymore.
77
posted on
02/16/2007 7:18:15 PM PST
by
ChiTownBearFan
("To see the world is to love America all the more"-Thomas Jefferson)
To: Texas Federalist
I think that was true 6 years ago, not anymore.
78
posted on
02/16/2007 7:18:19 PM PST
by
ChiTownBearFan
("To see the world is to love America all the more"-Thomas Jefferson)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-78 last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson