Posted on 11/15/2008 1:10:51 PM PST by neverdem
Both the Democratic and Republican National Committees are likely to have new leadership next year.
Former Democratic Governor Howard Dean of Vermont is stepping down, having completely recovered from his unfortunate reputation as an erratic and wildly liberal 2004 presidential contender. As chairman of the DNC, he adopted a controversial "50-state strategy" that had the party pouring resources into states it normally didn't contest. His strategy paid off this year as Barack Obama won such states as Indiana and Virginia that had not voted Democratic at the presidential level since Barry Goldwater's landslide loss in 1964. Unknown yet is whom Mr. Dean's replacement will be, but it's certainly going to be someone President-elect Obama will have confidence in -- campaign manager David Plouffe comes to mind. On the Republican side, the jockeying to replace current GOP Chairman Mike Duncan has begun. Mr. Duncan has been a competent administrator and fundraiser but the widely perceived need for new blood in the wake of the party's second consecutive drubbing at the polls makes him unlikely to be re-elected. Several candidates are lining up to replace him. Michigan GOP State Chairman Saul Anuzis is actively campaigning on a platform of reinvigorating the party's grass roots and returning to basic conservative principles. South Carolina Party Chairman Kalton Dawson is touting his fundraising abilities as he rounds up votes among fellow RNC members.
(Excerpt) Read more at online.wsj.com ...
“If he’s willing to risk the effectiveness of his position and to give ammo to the slavering drive-bys”
Newt Gingrich was the most effective advancer of the conservative cause on the national level since Reagan.
There is not a single conservative - EVER - who has not been made to look bad in one form or another by the liberal media. quit swallowing their phony spin is my point.
“It is irrelevant whether or not his complaint is justified. “ Uh huh, facts dont matter, great way to get spun by the libs!
I guess you think Palin is a horrible person too, since she has been effectively reduced to charicactures by the lib media just as they did to Newt.
What about the fact that even as a private citizen, newt got the “Drill Here, Drill Now” issue advanced in a way that NO ELECTED REPUBLICAN had done, until House GOP followed his lead and ran with it in August recess.
Your comments were, indeed “Mere abuse”, a slanted view of 15 year old events. Newt managed to get the House GOP re-elected a few times, so whatever hits he took didnt hurt the GOP too bad, nothing like the Bush impact on our image.
“If it is indeed true that ...” You are repeating a Molly Ivins smear.
“It is “the liberal spin on things” to cast aspersions on those who hold a different opinion from one’s own.”
You are doing that to me and to Newt - an admission?
... I think we need a forward-looking articulate conservative ideas guy at the RNC chair, and one who knows how to make 2010 a repeat of 1994. Newt is that.
“preferably someone who has no clue as to how congress works. right?”
The mind boggles.
We need knowledge not ignorance.
We need someone who can make 2010 a repeat of 1994. No better man than the guy who actually achitected the 1994 vitory.
Newt is like a college football coach who coached a team to victory in the exact same scenario we face now.
The numbers are almost the exact same ones: in 1992 we had only 175 or so congresscritters who were GOP - we won 50 seats in the House that year, 1994.
If we did it again, we could shut down Obama’s socialism by the end of 2010.
“However, WHAT he did is not as important as the fact that he DID IT and let us all down. He was given the key to the party and could have used his momentum and power to almost permanently cement the democrats into obscurity, but he didn’t.”
Baloney. Newt architected the 1994 victory and the GOP majority endured for 12 year. Newt bequeathed a GOP House majority when he left office in 1998. HE didnt squander it, but the lesser men after him, Hastert, Bush, Delay, etc. did so.
Newt left nobody down. He was the best thing the conservatives have had since Reagan, and if you know of anyone else to top his achievement of winning the Congress and passing welfare reform ... name him.
Palin, alas, is not as conservative as Newt.
Their comparable statements on the bailout speak to that.
“We need a strong, conservative RNC and other conservative groups who can produce timely radio and TV ads that actually TEACH what conservatism is and point out the flaws in the plans and programs of the Demonrats. Educating Americans is the only way to reignite and grow the conservative movement. I wish I knew how to get something like this going at a grassroots level.”
You are right. But look at how people tear Newt down here, rather than thinking about what we can do to teach conservatism or advance it. We really have to stop backbiting and finding fault in our ranks, and start getting into a mindset of how to evangelize for our beliefs. That is, if we are into winning rather than whining (some quite frankly are not at all interested in winning and do prefer whining; once we realize that, we can move on to ignore the whiners and start getting positive action with the winners attitude people).
Using internet and social media technology, its not expensive to spread the message. Political advocacy is effective when it is personal, so we need to get personal in our outreach. We have to tie internet technology, localization and precinct-level / neighborhood/ personal outreach.
This is true...Newt's now bought and paid for.
And suddenly, Newt has become a feckless RINO and worshipful out our new Marxist-Elect.
Geez, he's become more of a political eunuch every year since the Clintonistas cleaned his clock back when. Sad....
You're dreaming.
Newt has drank the Koolade.
Hear ya...
I haven't seen such a staunch conservative like Newt become so completely castrated ...EVER.
Criminally, he's now a used as a pawn and fake conservative at FOX.
Newt's position as a globalist NWO tool sickens me.
The Newtster is a sellout, pure and simple... well, simple maybe, but he’s hardly pure. He turned in to a Rat Lite. No, I would have NO further truck with Gingrich...
Yeah, Reagan was a delegator of details. He knew where he wanted to go, and he used the technicians and mechanics to get there. He focused on his vision of where to lead the country. He was a true leader who could communicate and explain his goals to the public, rally his troops, and win over the opposition (even Gorbachev). He had a set of guiding principles which he refused to abandon.
The book to read is The Reagan Diaries - a real eye opener on the Reagan Presidency. He was our last real leader, a giant among pygmies.
And after the first few glorious years, what did that Congress do? What became of it? It ignored Rush's advice and succumbed to the DC Culture.
And I just keep thinking that somehow the voters in the various districts have something to do with the composition of Congress. I am inclined, though willing to be edumicated, to shy away from thinking that some government figure "gave" us the Congress. And if any did, I'd suggest it was Hillary with her hubristic health plan who stirred up the people. Then Newt, like the particle in a super-cooled solution, gave them something around which to crystallize and organize.
I'm not trying to make a cartoon or black-and-white (are we still allowed to say that?) argument. Fer shur, Newt provided terrific leadership — he and Rush. I don't know if it's inevitable in the post FDR big government culture, but he got bogged down and his strength was dissipated. I can't shake the notion that he had something to do with the dissipation of his strength and the decay of the Republican led congress.
Look, it's hard for me to put aside the doubt I have in the trustworthiness of someone who professes Xtian values and breaks his marriage vows, and that more than once. I"m saying "hard" not "impossible".
Yes, for a while Newt was very effective.
I am NOT swallowing phony liberal spin,nor am I ignoring the facts. The situation was that Clintoon dissed Newt. To that extent his complaint was based on justice and fact.
But it is NOT ignoring the facts — in fact, if anything YOUR side is ignoring the facts — that he chose getting mad (that is, complaining) over getting even, and that he set himself up and walked open-eyed into a liberal ambush. It was an error in tactical judgment. And it was costly.
I guess you think Palin is a horrible person too, since she has been effectively reduced to charicactures by the lib media just as they did to Newt.
One distinction is that she has not yet demonstrated that jealousy for the petty honors and perquisites of office can cloud her political judgment.
What about the fact that even as a private citizen, newt got the “Drill Here, Drill Now” issue advanced in a way that NO ELECTED REPUBLICAN had done, until House GOP followed his lead and ran with it in August recess.
That's a good point. I am not arguing that there is No role for Newt. I'm not sure that that role would be elected office anymore. Let's consider a eminence grise role or an oratorical and consulting role. He's learned, he's experienced. Maybe he's learned from his errors, personal and political. And I believe my initial point in this particular spat was not a blanket and irrevocable rejection of Newt for all time, but an expression of considerable dubiety which led me to want some persuasive evidence that he had developed more magnanimity and trustworthiness.
“It is “the liberal spin on things” to cast aspersions on those who hold a different opinion from one’s own.”
You are doing that to me and to Newt - an admission?
I think we're just about done here. You have no evidence whatsoever that I disagree with Newt's past views. Further, you get personal in your attacks because I am not in the tank for Newt but express doubt about his suitability for elective office. I write "IF it is indeed true," and you conclude that I didn't mean the "if".
You have a nice day and consider how ineffective personal attacks are in changing views. I will read and consider reasonable defenses of the proposition that Newt is suitable for elected office. I will not read or consider yours.
Energy,energy???
You understand what’s coming.
The dems are going to try to totally zone out of power legislatively the pubbies from power for the next 40 years.
What we’re talking about is an invisible job...chairman of the RNC. However, the job is all about having an insider’s knowledge of how the congress works.
Who knows best how the congress works. who has a track record of actually wresting control of congress from the dems. who has shown a passion for the game. what’s coming is a pretty terrible fight. we’re going to need a fighter. that’s newt.
And Klinton and Obambi didn't? Lame excuse. Lamestream type excuse. Sounds like another "Run to the center type RINO to me.
I have had enough of GOP politicians with skeletons in their closets - in this case all those wives.
Then the global warming thingy - gag again.
She’s the one.
Right now— I cannot think of anyone else with the guts and determination of Sarah and her family. She puts every one of them to shame.
Palin’s my choice for 2012 or before.
Mad Dawg ... I am sorry I sounded ‘abusive’. I was frustrated you regurgitated liberal MSM spin on things and not the whole story, and I think freepers should know better ... so let me point out a few things:
“I am not arguing that there is No role for Newt. I’m not sure that that role would be elected office anymore.”
This post is NOT an ‘elective office’ like President or senator. It does NOT require a vote of the populace. It *IS* a spokesman, strategy and leadership of party role. I happen to think we need a man with newt’s skillsets and experience in that role. So our position may not be that different. It’s the RNC Chair, picked by the 150 RNC commisioners and state party heads. It’s about representing and leadng the GOP. I am NOT recommending him for President, where his character flaws make him unelectable; I AM recommending him for RNC Chair, where he can should be able to
(a) put us back into a strategy to win in 2010 in statehouses and in Congress
(b) articulate the conservative message better than anyone and
(c) leverage new technology to rebuild the GOP from the grassroots up, the kind of participative platforms his used in “American solutions” to come up with drill here, drill now.
Newt has been RIGHT on what would happen to our party if we didnt have a clear vision of conservative ‘Real Change’.
Now you say:
“The situation was that Clintoon dissed Newt. To that extent his complaint was based on justice and fact.”
Yes, that’s my point. Newt makes one comment and its distorted and blown out of context. Its hardly fair to hold that against him 15 years later as a significant impediment given his many accomplishments. That same year, when he made one comment you dont like, he ALSO:
- set us on a path to balance the budget, but enacting a budget with the sharpest fall in the deficit EVER
- passed welfare reform, the one significant conservative reform of our era
- managed to keep the promises in the Contract with America by passing all ten bills in the House and gett the majority of the idea implemented in law
We got more conservative reforms out of 4 years of Newt as Speaker than we did from 8 years of Bush as President.
IMHO that says a lot.
“if anything YOUR side is ignoring the facts — that he chose getting mad (that is, complaining) over getting even, and that he set himself up and walked open-eyed into a liberal ambush. It was an error in tactical judgment. And it was costly.”
I am certainly not ignoring that Clinton was out to put one over on him. The fact is that no matter what Newt said, he would have had critics - that’s the point! The liberal MSM was hammering him daily over whatever he said, and if he just took the abuse of the President without complaint people like you and me would say ‘why cant he stand up for himself?’ He made one comment and the liberal MSM made a mountain out of a molehill over it.
Call it a tactical error if you will, but lets put it in context of both newt’s wider accomplishments and the biased media and Clinton spin room selling their story. In the end, it was NOT costly to the GOP, but to Newt’s image alone. The GOP majority endured AND we actually got most of the budget concessions we wanted that year. Clinton’s games were all about ‘triangulating’ to reelection, and frankly, while Newt made tactical mistakes, its impossible to be perfect when the President had leverage and a friendly media and millions in soft money to make ‘his story’ stick no matter what Newt did or didnt do.
So cut Newt some slack.
PS. “One distinction is that she [Palin] has not yet demonstrated that jealousy for the petty honors and perquisites of office can cloud her political judgment.”
- I guess you missed how the liberal media tried planting that thought with their attacks on Palin’s per diem usage and the story of her shopping for $150,000 in clothes, a story that is apparently a fabrication (like much of what they threw against Newt).
They threw over hundred ethics charges against Newt. In the end, it was a big heap of nothing. They attacked Newt for donig a book deal, but when Hillary, Obama and others do book deal, its treated like a *good* thing!
The press is treating Palin like they treated Newt. Unfair negative spin to tear down a person’s image. Why? Because they always go after conservative threats and because it *works*.
I like Newt, but it is going to be hard having someone in the RNC plugging traditional values by someone who has been plugging every skirt that caught his eye for some time. Especially disgraceful was the way he abandoned his wife who was hopitalized with cancer for a newer model.
Nevertheless, he is a very bright tactician, when he is not talking about global warming.
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.