Posted on 06/16/2010 11:44:36 AM PDT by sheikdetailfeather
You have summed-up the whole Gingrich conundrum very concisely!
Well said. I would like permission to copy your statement and paste it, with attributes, to any Newt Is Great thread.
Please feel free, but prepare to be called a "coward" and a "quitter" for no particular reason...
I always found Newt to be brilliant and he articulates things so well. I gleen from him the good that is there and I disagree with his sitting with Pelosi or wanting to be liked by snakes. I feel sad that happened as it does cause distrust. Yet, there are few who can summarize a situation such as he can.
But Newt should never be asked to run anything. It's beyond him -- as his tour as Speaker proved.
After all, Newt's experience is as a career politician and an academic; he has no more executive experience than Obama had when he became President.
His role should be in the "kitchen cabinet".
Ya.....I saw that.
Your comment sums up my feelings quite well. There will always be issues on which we disagree with any pol, so we’re often foced to base our support on those points where our values and principles coincide.
I agree with few people 100% of the time and don’t expect others to agree with me 100% of the time. But we can work towards common goals.
I wish he would just go away.
I think that is exactly wrong.
If nothing else conservatism needs desperately an articulate spokesman of exactly what it is. Newt Gingrich is far and away the best at that among the political class (Wash DC), knowledge, quick thinking, and ability to condense the argument succinctly.
Not that he should be President, any more than Barack Obama should be President (also a verbal force). But witness George Bush, or Senior, or virtually any of conservative Senators; none of them, absolutely none of them, can espouse what conservatism is, in general terms (responsibility of the individual to face his own life), or relative to any imminent political issue (which Newt does consummately.
To say that Newt has been cancelled, or demonized by the Media, is to concede the Media can indeed cancel even articulate conservative advocates. I would give Newt Gingrich all the limelight that could be mustered. Where he errs can be addressed independently, and that very process would begin to straighten things out again.
It is a profound political mistake to eliminate Newt Gingrich (who incidentally was an effective conservative Speaker). When the Left had someone like Barack Obama, did they shut him up?
I never saw the global warming commercial, but global warming is NOT the issue (there is indeed such a phenomenon). The issue is how or why human civilization should do anything drastic to counter the phenomenon when it occurs.
Johnny Suntrade
I appreciate your intelligent and reasoned rebuttal of my position. In fact, I agree with much of what you say about Gingrich’s intellect, articulation of conservative principles, and effectiveness as a House Speaker.
About the only area where we seem to disagree is the degree to which he was ‘taken-out’ by the media. My feeling is that his endorsement would do more to stir up ill-will from the past in gullible ‘centrists’, than it would to rally those of us who already embrace his principles.
To me, it’s kind of like championing Jeb Bush. Doesn’t matter if he’s a ‘more conservative’ candidate than his brother or father, the name is poison, and we don’t want to go there.
I have similar feelings about Karl Rove and Dick Cheney. I think Cheney is one of the most impressive figures I’ve ever heard speak, and I also admire Rove. But trotting them out to endorse the next generation of conservatives would inspire a media feeding frenzy.
Let’s face it, it’s not going to be a walk in the park for whoever emerges as a new conservative leader. But let’s make the MSM work at destroying new faces rather than rehashing what’s already worked well at neutralizing the old.
Can you sum up what he said? I’m not going to watch a youtube video on my blackberry.
I just saw your post this morning. I will attempt to sum up what he said. He said Obama’s speech is not factually accurate. Newt said he is not sure if he just does not know any better or whether he is deliberately inaccurate. But Newt said the govt. has blocked drilling in shallow water areas. All of Pacific, etc.. He said it is not that we are running out of resources such as Obama said in his speech. He said his description of the crisis makes no sense. When the spill first occurred, he should have set up a command post asap and met with BP asap. He should have accepted help from other countries. With the high unemployment in America, he proposes an energy bill which kills jobs, raises the price of energy and ships jobs overseas. How is this going to help and benefit anyone in America?
Wow. Thank you so much for summing up. I have no access to a pc right now and just have my blackberry. It sounded like newt was making sense and not going green and wobbly on us. I could imagine a global warming version of newt saying this spill demonstrates we must go with windmills or some such crap. :-)
How about you explain what “successfully demonized” means. If you succeed in explainging that, you'll find your answer.
You is?! Well, isn't that special! One wouldn't know it to read your writing...
You were expecting “I be?”
From you, yes...
Good idea- trot out somebody “new” after “allowing” the MSM to “successfully demonize” those you know to be excellent.
You know, kinda like that fresh face that GHWB introduced as VP. What was his name? Dan Quayle? Yes, good move putting out somone who was not damaged goods. That way the media would what, Leave them alone?
So whoever we have, as soon as the media shreds them we toss ‘em aside and “put out somone new.”
You’re right, that’s not cowardice. It is courage personified.
The media will “demonize” anyone who is intelligent, moral, active, creative, and conservative.
Successfully so means one thing- that we have quit.
That defines the success of a demonization. The target quits. Look into it sometime. You’ll see a pattern.
You didn’t see it in Mr. Newt either, back in the days when he was gunnin’ down Jim Wright and any other rat that got in his way. He’s been COMPROMISED.
"That defines the success of a demonization. The target quits."
Well, Lordy, Lordy! You have just confirmed my initial point. Welcome to the party. GINGRICH QUIT, in 1998. I didn't quit anything, despite your inexplicable contention to the contrary.
He faced 80-some ethics charges from the Dems, the media all but drew Devil's horns on him in their coverage, and a groups of Pubbies worked in secret a couple of times to try to oust him. I'd say that was a pretty successful case of 'demonization', given that he ultimately resigned.
"The media will “demonize” anyone who is intelligent, moral, active, creative, and conservative."
No kidding. Gee, now that we agree, can we be best friends?
"So whoever we have, as soon as the media shreds them we toss ‘em aside and “put out somone new.”"
I didn't say that. The crux of my post is that Gingrich is damaged-goods, that he's been considered damaged-goods for over 12 stinkin' years, and remains a controversial figure, even among conservatives.
In the end, I guess you're right. Putting someone out there who hasn't already been beat-up is a bad idea.
Maybe we can get Bob Dole or McCain to run the gauntlet again. Neither will win, but we don't have to suffer the embarrassment of seeing a newbie get pummeled.
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.