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."
I like Newt. But it’s time to get in, or shut up. He’s not helping anyone but the demholes.
Don’t you allow for the possibility that he’s learned something from his mistakes?
Yeah — my mistake. You’re right about Newt having a fascination with the private sector. He might make a better (creative-type) CEO than a president. But the alternatives, with the possible exception of Ol’ Fred, aren’t very impressive. Newt understands the left and how it works. Very few Republicans do. He’s also got a lot of Washington experience, far more and at a much higher leve, than Ol’ Fred. One reason why our system of government hasn’t worked well in a long time is that our presidents don’t know Washington. I know that’s a very unpopular view at FReep, but it’s the truth.
Reagan didn’t just “inspire” people. He warned about many things and told many unpleasant truths. As president, he was more mellow, though he still spokes as a prophet at times. But before he was president, he was very much a prophet, not a feel-good artist. Have you ever heard his classic “A Time for Choosing” speeches from the 1964 campaign? Not exactly upbeat. It was inspirational mainly in the sense that it inspired fear. As it should have.
My concern with Newt is that he hasn’t really done much in the private sector that I know of— He comes from academia and gubmint—but he fancies himself a bold thinking executive, uses the grandiose language of the corporate CEO (transformation, key strategies, blah blah.) I think he’d try to do too much. He’s too grandiose.
A point about inspiration and pissing people off. In politics, it is impossible to inspire a significant number of people without pissing off others.
////////////////////
you mean like Hillary?
It’s quite possible to piss off without inspiring.
Maybe, but he has to make up for all those other Republican leaders — nearly all Republican leaders — who aren’t “grandiose” but are deliberately small, low-key, and uninspirational.
It’s quite possible to piss off without inspiring.
////////////////
Hillary inspires dems. She does not inspire the pubbies. She pisses off pubbies.
Exactly, same as Thompson.
Going to be really interesting if they both start smelling the coffee at the same time. But no need to blame the candidates - perhaps they are a tad smarter than the rest of the field and are using the MSM for what it is, a tool.
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.