Posted on 06/03/2007 8:59:50 AM PDT by don-o
WASHINGTON - Newt Gingrich described the Bush administration as dysfunctional and its unpopularity as hazardous to those in the Republican Party.
"The government is not functioning. It's not getting the job done," said the former House speaker, who is considering a run for the Republican presidential nomination. "Republicans need to confront this reality."
Gingrich said in a broadcast interview he believes Bush "means very, very well" but falls short when it comes to putting his goals in place and running the government.
"All you have to do is look at the examples I've given you today where the government simply fails," said Gingrich, citing the administration's handling of the war in Iraq, its immigration policies and response to Hurricane Katrina.
"We have to have very relentless, dramatic change in American government," he said.
Gingrich added, "The key question is: Is somebody prepared to stand up and say that the American people deserve fundamental change in Washington?"
Gingrich said two Republicans in the 2008 field, Mitt Romney and Rudy Giuliani, and one prospective GOP contender, Fred Thompson, are capable of "offering a very bold, dramatic vision" that could appeal to the party's conservative voters. "These are solid people," said Gingrich.
He was interviewed on "Fox News Sunday."
Free trade isn’t the same as globalism. If you conflate the two, you’re an ignoramus.
Free trade has gone too far, but it’s not the same as “economic integration,” or globalism. Globalists and proponents of economic integration — if they’re intellectually consistent, which some aren’t — would certainly support free trade as well. But free traders don’t necessarily support either economic integration or globalism.
I actually thought Newt was the Newt of 1994.
However, he talks a good line but damn was that old congress a big disappointment.
Nonsense. The ‘95-96 Congress was an inspiration that all serious conservatives will remember fondly as long as they live. The House performed marvellously. There were some serious disappointments in the Senate, but that’s the Senate. We simply didn’t have enough seats there. In addition, Clinton wouldn’t go along with most of what we passed. Big surprise.
Little Newtie should know - it didn’t take him long to drop the ball in ‘95 and ‘96.
Like I said, he may have orchestrated a marketing campaign, along the lines of what the party committee chairman does, but he didn't have to run for statewide, let alone national office. He basically franchised congressional elections, which, while interesting, tells us nothing about his ability to win in a national election.
I’m not even going to bother reading it. It has nothing to do with what words he says. That’s what Newt’s best at—saying words on TV, especially now that he’s unaccountable. It’s his character that makes him unsuitable.
Talk about your pipe dreams. It’s like I say. Newt’s great at talking. Great at making spiffy lists. But last I checked, he hasn’t really changed anything. He just talks.
Thanks for posting that! I like Gingrich; he’s the only one in the bunch who seems to have genuine ideas and is not merely reacting to events but is thinking ahead and has a plan.
I was a little puzzled by his favorably citing the two libs and Thompson (none of whom, for one reason or another, share many of his ideas), although I think this is probably because he is not an announced candidate and doesn’t want to get into that battle right now.
Meaningless pap. He talks like a CEO, and that's not a compliment.
Well, I went ahead and read the dumb thing. But it’s like when my lib mom complained that I wouldn’t go see Al Gore’s movie. She said I wasn’t willing to listen to the other side. Sometimes, you just already have enough information to make up your mind. So now I have to rehash over and over to satisfy everyone else that I know what I think?? I don’t think so. Newt’s been around plenty long. I’ve seen/heard/read him many times. And it’s a pointless discussion anyway because he has no chance whatsoever.
> You couldn’t be more wrong. Fifty percent of this country DOES need to be lectured over and over, as the other FReeper said.
Nagging doesn’t turn people. Inspiration does. Reagan did that. Newt can’t.
> You couldn’t be more wrong. Fifty percent of this country DOES need to be lectured over and over, as the other FReeper said.
Nagging doesn’t turn people. Inspiration does. Reagan did that. Newt can’t.
/////////////////////
I disagree. Newt inspires. He was the one who inpired the pubbies in the 90’s. However, I do agree that he pisses some people off. As well, he Fred Thompson and everyone else who went up against Clinton—was made to look bad by Clinton and the accomodating media. However, it was his work in congress to create budget surpluses that the democrats are currently running on. ie he made the democrats look good. The bush white house subsequently pissed away his surpluses.
You’re right about Romney sounding like a CEO, and I agree, that’s not nearly the same as either political savvy or political leadership. I’m still considering him, but I don’t like that “CEO,” nonpolitical style.
A point about inspiration and pissing people off. In politics, it is impossible to inspire a significant number of people without pissing off others.
Newt inspired a lot of people to run, helped them run effectively by setting up training (years before ‘94, I believe) and setting some good themes for the party. He also made the House Republicans into a more attractive and effective bunch — making more people want to join them.
Yea, he basically set up a franchise system. Which may prove he’s an effective marketer. However, he’s an ineffective leader, which is why he couldn’t hold onto the speakership, got bested by Slick Willie, and had to resign.
I was talkin bout Newt. He sees himself as the Jack Welch of politics.
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.