Posted on 11/22/2011 9:09:03 AM PST by MNJohnnie
In his Nov. 17 Op-Ed column, Doyle McManus draws attention to Newt Gingrich's comeback and compares it with Richard Nixon's makeover in 1968. To that end, McManus offers a side-by-side comparison of the two Newts:
Old Newt -- Angry Newt, the one who entered the presidential campaign last spring -- talked in apocalyptic terms about threats to American culture. Old Newt wrote about "a secular-socialist machine" led by the Democratic Party that "represents as great a threat to America as Nazi Germany or the Soviet Union once did."
"If we do not decisively win the struggle over the nature of America," he warned, the U.S. could soon become "a secular atheist country, potentially one dominated by radical Islamists."
And the revised version:
New Newt -- Presidential Newt -- talks about fiscal challenges more than cultural threats and says they don't look that scary. "There are ways to solve this," he told voters in Iowa this week. The economy can be fixed, he said, simply by allowing more oil and gas drilling, reducing fraud in federal programs and "putting people back to work."
The change is not complete. Gingrich still slips back into his past ways, as people do. Regardless, is this change sustainable? McManus wonders:
Can New Newt keep Old Newt at bay for long? It's one thing to focus on fiscal issues instead of cultural warfare; that's just a matter of emphasis. The greater challenge for Gingrich is maintaining his changed temperament after years of delighting in unconventional ideas and unrestrained polemic.
(Excerpt) Read more at opinion.latimes.com ...
New Newt: Lipstick on a pig.
Yep. A Newt candidacy would end in the biggest GOP fiasco since 1964.
"A co-author and architect of Contract with America, Gingrich was in the forefront of Republican Party success in the 1994 Congressional election.
In 1995, Time magazine named him "Man of the Year" for his role in ending 40 years of majority rule by the Democratic Party.
During his four years as House speaker, Gingrich sometimes opposed President Bill Clinton but he also worked closely with Clinton, in 1996, to limit public welfare, and, in 1997, to pass a capital gains tax cut and, in 1998, to pass the first balanced budget since 1969."
Yep. Big Government guy all the way. Facts are stubborn, aren't they?
I am very disappointed to read such a lie coming from you.
Nice...don’t respond. Doyle McManless is the biggest socialist hack on the LA TIMES. And you morons are quoting him like he’s Goood.
What happened to the old saying “they are only shooting him because he’s over the target?”
Double talking weasels.
Has your buddy BoingBoing got the day off, so you have to post the hit pieces today?
It is obvious that the only GOP hopefuls that don’t scare the LSM are Huntsman and Romney.
[ I think you meant “Go Postal” with Michele Bachmann. ]
No.. that would be “MEE”... I’m on the verge of going “Postal”..
newt’s record is enough to remove him from consideration by conservatives.
Democrats accused Gingrich of violating the agreement, but it was forwarded to the House for approval.
On January 21, 1997, the House voted 395 to 28 to reprimand Gingrich, including a $300,000 "cost assessment" to recoup money spent on the investigation. The full committee panel did not agree whether tax law had been violated.
In 1999, the IRS cleared the organizations connected with the courses.
Which one of the potential candidates comes out of this run for President for the Republican party, will then face Obama. He is an excellent speaker, and the liberals do not waver, they support their guy no matter what. It is a firm line that ignores reality to hold on to power.
God help us. Our guys/gals being usually good guys/gals, play nice and compromise continually.
It is a dilemma that repeats and repeats ...
Scares me, we are at the brink of catastrophe. Indeed.
Assuming you meant to say reprimanded, it was ruled moot by the IRS after the fact, when they found there was no cause.
But you already knew that.
Was it the new Newt or the old Newt...
... on the couch with Nancy
... endorsed Dede Scozzafava
... called an attempt to cut spending “Right wing social engineering”
...
If it turns out to be Newt vs Obama, sure I’ll vote for Newt.
If we don’t get a true conservative candidate like Cain, Bachmann, Santorum, or even Perry (anyone who touts succession can’t be all bad); we have to make sure we elect Tea Party conservatives by the score to Congress.
The Democrat Senate voted 100& for Obamacare -voting party over country. Not one democrat senator exercised his or her conscience. It was a shameful travesty and unprecedented power grab.
I don’t see our guys ever being that blind, but it never hurts to stock up on ammunition and make the Tea Party wing of the republican party as strong as possible.
It’s easy to convince a democrat to vote himself more power. It’s a different game when one’s core conviction has to be turned.
We have to elect enough principled conservatives so that the leadership cannot form a coalition of democrat and republican moderates to outflank us. It is that simple.
If we wind up with a Newt or Romney or, God-forbid, Obama again, we have to hold the House stronger than ever.
ooops my bad I meant secession. lol
Newt is Newt, and what you see doesn’t mean you won’t see something different as opportunities arise and political winds blow.
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.