Gingrich syndrome is causing many Freepers to misunderstand what Newt is saying. It is not fair to criticize him for attempting to break up the Republican Party so he can lead a third-party into the presidency. That is not what he is saying here. He's pointing the way to a potential Republican victory: abandon moderation for fiscal discipline. In other words, opose Obama. He warns, and quite rightly so, that if this warning is not heeded the likely result is the breakup of the party. One need only read through these posts to understand that there is a significant block of Republicans who are ready to bolt the party on this issue. Even though I have often posted that it is only prudent to exploit the party resources rather than to junk it, there comes a time when principle must prevail over pragmatism. Many, many conservatives crossed that line somewhere around 2006.
I have often posted that the only lesson we learned from the election disaster of 2008 is that we learn nothing from the election of 2006. Gingrich is telling us what the lesson is. If we fail to heed this manifestly true analysis, the breakup of the party is inevitable.
I am not going to criticize Gingrich for what he is not reported to have said in this article. But mere fiscal discipline alone is only one leg of the party stool. Social conservatives and defense minded conservatives make up the other two legs without which the stool crashes. I do not know from this article where Gingrich stands on supporting social conservatism. From his other remarks in which he has identified many issues which he has polled to be socially conservative "winners," I have confidence that it will be satisfactory to that wing of the party, of which I count myself a member.
Gingrich has been implicitly criticized by posters on this thread for ambition. They ask, for what purpose does Gingrich seek to lead a third-party into the White House? That is a question every national candidate must answer and the true answer is that it is because he thinks his ideas are better. Ask yourself, for what reason did George W. Bush seek the presidency? I have often posted on this subject and the most charitable that I can be toward Bush is that he sought the office out of a sense of noblisse oblige and Christian service. He did not seek it to advance conservative principles. Those of us who thought otherwise were harshly disillusioned. Many disillusionments came with the appointment of Harriet Miers. Knowing what I know of Gingrich's bona fides as a conservative, I would rather have him in power than any other plausible Republican I can think of, including Sarah Palin whom I adore.
I have been touting Gingrich to become the chairman of the Republican National Committee since before the election of Michael Steele who, as I predicted, has become a walking disaster. I have often said that Newt Gingrich, because of problems in his biography which have been greatly overblown, is probably personally disqualified to be the candidate of the Republican Party for president. That would not be the case in the Democrat party and might not be the case in a third-party. But he would make a great chairman of the Republican Party.
Consider the way he has put his finger on the beating heart of American politics right now. Consider how he has articulated the matter:“It is just literally irrational.” Obama's spending is "irrational." You won't forget that, it says it all. Gingrich is the only man in the Republican Party today who can identify issues and articulate a convincing conservative message. I say again, the only man publicly known who can do those two functions without which we fail again in 2010 and in 2012.
If conservatism fails, it means more than that Obama wins, it means the nation is bankrupted, our democracy is compromised and perhaps even destroyed, it means that your children will inherit a shabby, dreary existence with nothing to feed upon spiritually or intellectually but a diet of political correctness, and an utter forfeiture of their American Birthright.
Those who object to Gingrich have an obligation to put forward the name of a better candidate either for chairman of the party or for president. I think those names should be advanced only if the supporter can show that in a time of acute national and party crisis their candidate can seize the moment at a time of utter peril, akin to Churchill in 1940, re-organize a party, generate hundreds of millions of dollars in contributions, identify the message, and "hurl the English language into battle" against Obama.
