Newt Advises Fred

Human Events ^ | Robert Novak

[W04Man]

Bump! IT'S FRED TIME!!

http://Vets4Fred.net It's time for Vets to sign up!

http://FredForPresident.com

[txhurl]

Mr. Bedford, Mr. Rove is available now to us and we expect him to assist even more so now that official duty does not tie his hands nor words.

[txrangerette]

I know you know it all, nb. Anyone can tell you do, just by reading your treatises. Grin. I find lots of good in what you write, however, there’s a fly in the ointment.

President Bush has every reason not to want Gingrich any where near anything. You’ve decidided that Bush’s reason is “Newt isn’t button-downed”. That’s your right to think so, but it’s not supportable by known fact and by logic. You’re too anti-Bush to allow yourself to settle on the obvious reasons he doesn’t want him near anything. Freepers themselves by the dozens and hundreds have pointed out Newt’s impossibles, and every few days Newt himself pops off with his big mouth and reinforces WHY George Bush is right not to want him near anything...buttoned-downed or not.
Newt has a mind-boggling intellect and Newt knows a staggering amount about history and politics. Just about everything else about Newt is poison.

President Bush knows that.

That’s all I need to know, too, to know your statements about Bush and the Newt issue are unfair and biased.

[ejonesie22]

It really wasn’t so much about fair play, just the fact he points out in his tag that he supports another candidate...

[ejonesie22]

I am well aware, just pointing out that little fact about being upfront on support.

[nathanbedford]

Attorney General Gonzales

Harriet Miers

Governor Ridge

"Brownie"

Mel Martinez

George Tenant (failure to remove)

Porter Goss

If this partial list of appointees or would be appointees makes you feel warm and fuzzy and love Bush all the more that is, as you put it, your right but it leaves me with a headache when I contemplate the 2008 election.

Do not worry, all is well, Mel Martinez is at the helm of the RNC.

Do you believe that Newt Gingrich would put up with any of these damn fools for even a New York minute?

[nathanbedford]

A couple more thoughts on why I think is important to defend Newt Gingrich. It has been a particular hobbyhorse of mine for some time now to decry the the callowness of the Republican party in defending its own when they are under attack. The entire ethical case against Newt Gingrich in my opinion was a hollow hoax. Yet, Republicans for selfish motives, motives of self-preservation, motives of ambition, turned their faces from him. The ordeal of Trent Lott also comes to mind. Tom DeLay ultimately was abandoned by the party. I carry no brief for Trent Lott but if we make a habit of sitting in silence while the left Castrate our party leaders, we will slink off into mediocrity and defeat.

The left did not attack Newt Gingrich because they give a damn about his marital problems, they attacked him from all sides because he drove them from office. They did not really believe that Tom DeLay was guilty of a felony where no such law existed, they wanted to destroy the man who ramrodded the Republicans in the House of Representatives and who gerrymandered Texas against them. Trent Lott was accosted as much by George Bush and the Republicans as by the left. If I were Trent Lott, I would be a very bitter man.

It should be the reflexive reaction of all Republicans and conservatives to rally around their own except when there are credible allegations of corruption. These allegations about sexual misconduct or racism are the kinds of allegations, like hate crimes, which the left will seize upon to dominate the whole of our existence.

[advance_copy]

Now our party has four front-runners (including McCain for sake of argument), only 1 of which has stayed married to the same person. All of a sudden this is not an issue to conservatives? If not, we have truly sold our soul.

President Reagan was divorced and re-married. Don't you think he did a pretty good job as President? I do. I think he did such a great job that we should put Ronald Reagan's portrait on the $10 bill.

[Arrowhead1952]

In the South, and Texas, there are lifelong Democrats who are just because their family was forever and so they are.

That is one thing I cannot understand. I know many people who pull the dim lever, "Because Mom and Dad did for years".

I soured on all dims after the peanut farmer got elected. Thank God he was only there for four years.

P.S. We need to go check out the road construction on 1431 for points soon.

[hosepipe]

[.. Newt Advises Fred ..]

Its about time.. they should team completely up.. add Hunter to team too.. the three of them just might make a dent.. in George Bush's framentation of the party..

They won't win in 2008, America is bamboozled already.. but they might make a dent in the propaganda..

[asparagus]

Of course I'm aware of that. But you never heard of Reagan fooling around with Nancy while with wife #1. Besides, Reagan married another actress Jane Wyman, who was a serial divorcer (she was married and divorced four times (Reagan being her second divorce). I can accept that. You also never heard of Ron as a playboy.

All of a sudden, these personal "defects" that we used to be so critical of others about are now perfectly acceptable, and how dare we criticize others for living an "alternative" lifestyle. We need to be careful what vices are suddenly acceptabe once we begin our hero-worshipping pilgrimage.

[Ditter]

The same names keep coming up? It seems to me that people always ran for president over and over again, finally, after several tries, they might get it. I wasn't interested in politics at all until Reagan, he ran more than once, and I remember Nixon ran several times.

I like what I hear about Duncan Hunter, but he is still basically unknown to me and to a lot of others. People who aren't freepers have never heard his name. Maybe after this run he will be known and next time he will be elected. He is certainly young enough.

[Doofer]

Fred is dead as a candidate if Newt is advising him.

I'm sure you're right [sarcasm].....

[JCEccles]

I guess FRed’s got the southern Christian serial adulterer vote locked up tight.

[JCEccles]

That's right. In this modern, progressive era, serial adultery and multiple divorces are virtues in a candidate.

FRed and Newt qualify on that score. What more do we need to know?

[Petronski]

Gingrich is a helluva lot smarter than you'll ever be.

[Petronski]

Why don’t you just prove Fred committed “serial adultery” or admit your a damned liar?

[Petronski]

For that matter, genius, provide a list of Fred's "multiple divorces."

Is no lie beneath you?

[OESY]

I agree with much of your thoughtful analysis, although txrangerette makes a good point in partial dissent. In my opinion, Bush may remember Newt leading the charge against his father's "no new taxes" pledge* and doesn't want to risk such a future confrontation. Newt has a tendency to go public when he might be more effective working behind the scenes as a bright and articulate adviser. A public argument is the last thing that Bush would want, given his hesitantation while speaking publicly--particularly in front of a hostile press. In private meetings Bush is described as smart and savvy. My sense is that Cheney and Rumsfeld were no wallflowers who shunned robust debate, and that is how Bush prefers it. So I believe Bush was not looking for the "button-down" type as much as one who is loyal and avoids undercutting his administration's larger agenda.

Newt, on the other hand, has done himself no favors by the stand he took on global warming in his appearance with Kerry. I see his (implied) point that global warming is a gravy train, and that Democrats should not be the only ones to benefit. But I would prefer he saw GW as a diversion of public funds for wasteful patronage purposes based on pseudo-scientific findings. Overall, I was hoping Newt would see that he is not electable, but would join the GOP debates to enrich the quality of the discussions, if that were possible under present formats. His sense of history, experience as House Speaker, and grasp of important issues and practical solutions should not be wasted.

* A good deal if Democrats under Mitchell-Foley could have been trusted to limit spending, but they suckered Bush Sr. into their trap, which they used hypocritically as a wedge issue to divide Republicans and win in 1992.

.

[Politicalmom]

Look Fred has “no more political experience than Obama.”

What say you?