Posted on 12/14/2011 4:45:53 AM PST by C. Edmund Wright
Almost all political commentators agree on one thing. The Republican presidential campaign is unlike any we have experienced. It is not a campaign of steady trends and continuities, but rather of emotional reversals and discontinuities. Perhaps this is so because the last 3 to 4 years have been a shocking time of discontinuities and reversals for America. (snip) (So) what kind of candidate is most likely to make sense of the terrible events and forces that weigh down our country; be capable of vividly describing our plight and what needs to be done; and convince the public that he or she has the intelligence, courage, experience and sheer willful capacity to force events favorably to America's historic interests and needs? (snip) Curious. I remember most of them enthusiastically following his leadership year after year as the Republican whip from 1989-1994. It was the most successful congressional opposition movement since Benjamin Disraeli formed the modern Conservative Party in Britain in the mid-19th century. And after the GOP took back the House for the first time in 40 years (and the Senate, too, by the way), Gingrich's four years as speaker proved to be the most productive, legislative congressional years since at least 1965 to 1967, and they were led by Lyndon B. Johnson from the White House. Working against -- and with -- Democratic President Bill Clinton, we passed into law most of the Contract with America, welfare reform, telecommunications reform (which ushered in the modern cell phone and Internet age), we had the first balanced budget since before the Vietnam War, we cut taxes and lowered unemployment to under 5 percent.
(Excerpt) Read more at realclearpolitics.com ...
The analogy itself was not valid, as I have already shown. If you really have a problem with the Patton-MacArthur-Gingrich analogy, perhaps you should direct your comments to the person who invented it. But it seems clear that you are more interested in stroking your own ego.
Flunked logic, didn’t you?
If not, you missed a damned good opportunity.
They don't care. They are pre-occupied with their illusions of grandeur about how great things were during the Clinton years.
One team, one fight, brother.
How sad for you. Willing to overlook the selling of a High speed train for Florida. congress passed the funding backing.
It’s in the FBI report.
Marianne running around euro with a bunch of arms dealers and the connections to Jack Abranoff. How do you think ole Newt went from $10,000 net worth to 7 million. Just really saving money from his Congressional Pay. Oh couldn’t be, he bounced 22 checks during the Congressional bank scandal.
I have come to the conclusion that the Newt supporters ACTUALLY want Obama to win.
Do you actually think the Obamanation Campaign will overlook Newts “flaws”?
Get real.
Have you ever heard of VETTING.
Closing your eyes to the truth does not make it go away. You can bet the Dummies are already writing the scripts for the campaign ads if Newt gets the nod.
(no link)
UNEASE OVER GINGRICH LINGERS IN HOUSE GOP UNITED FRONT: YOUNG CONSERVATIVES STILL FEEL BETRAYED BY CONCESSIONS.
San Jose Mercury News (CA) - Saturday, July 26, 1997
Author: DAVID HESS, Mercury News Washington Bureau
House Republicans would have people believe the turmoil is over — that they're united, focused on legislation and rallying behind House Speaker Newt Gingrich following the abortive coup attempt against him.
But beneath the public declarations of harmony, there remains a lingering sense of unease over Gingrich ‘s leadership style and the party's purpose.
Rep. Lindsey Graham , R-S.C., a ringleader in the putsch attempt, is still telling colleagues that Gingrich ‘’must lead or get out of the way.’’ He and his conservative soul mates have convinced themselves that they can impose their legislative agenda if they just hang tough against President Clinton and ignore the transitory hits they might take in the polls.
Skepticism remains
Another conservative, Rep. Tom Coburn , R-Okla., said he will hold his fire for awhile but remains skeptical about whether Gingrich is up to taking on the president. ‘’I'm taking a wait-and-see position,’’ he said, expressing concern about what he sees as Gingrich ‘s propensity to deal away too many cards to Clinton in negotiations over taxes, spending and other issues.
He and other like-minded members feel betrayed by what they consider backsliding by the speaker on conservative principles. Mostly they are sophomores who came to Congress in 1995 as acolytes of the then-fiery Gingrich , who boasted of leading a revolution against big government.
(snip)
The speaker's retreat this spring on a flood relief bill to help California and other states also was seen as a needless surrender of principle to Clinton, and it continues to gall the back-bench conservatives who anguish over Gingrich ‘s leadership style. Republicans had wanted to add riders to the flood relief bill to give them more leverage in budget negotiations with Clinton.
‘’The diffusion of federal power, the downsizing of the federal government, the devolution of federal programs to the local level — that's what Republicans should be about,’’ said one Southern conservative dissident, who asked not to be identified for fear of appearing out-of-step with the upbeat mood of the moment. ‘’I'm not sure that Newt is still on board. I'm not surewhere he's leading us.’’
Even Majority Whip Tom DeLay, R-Texas, who confessed he had plotted with dissidents to bump Gingrich but has since made his peace with the speaker, conceded that the ‘’problems that created this ( coup attempt) are still there.’’
But, in Gingrich ‘s defense, DeLay said the junior members must learn ‘’they can't just get up and rant and rave on an issue’’ and expect to prevail. ‘’They've got to learn to work with others to get things done.’’
The GOP conference chairman, John Boehner of Ohio, among the Republican leaders who apologized to Gingrich for flirting with the coup conspirators, said the dissidents ‘’must learn that we often have to take a series of smaller steps to get where we ultimately want to go.’’
One of his [Newt] key insights was to recognize that the two-dozen Northeastern moderates and liberals in the GOP caucus held the balance of power -- we didn't have 218 safe conservative votes in the House. Gingrich needed to avoid them playing off the GOP against the Democrats, which is what such a faction in any congressional party normally tries to do. Rather, he wanted them to feel fundamental loyalty and value in sticking with the GOP working majority. To do that, they had to get some of the provisions that they wanted in bills, often enough that they would stick with the conservatives on other issues.
This required a lot of maneuvering by Gingrich.
You can’t have it both ways. You can’t complain about folks being in office together one day and turn around and bitch about one quitting office the next.
“Quitting” is not always bad - in any industry, there are proper times to resign or take a sabbatical or retire. Of course, when someone not interested in an adult conversation comes along and yells “quitter” like they’re still on a kindergarten playground, such nuanced situations get lost in kiddie poop diaper rhetoric.
The proper analogy with Newt and the Generals you mentioned is that both were reviled and hated by many who were intimidated by their abilities. They also both had many ups and downs during their career.
I realize that this kind of intellectual analysis is above your pay grade.
Of course that never happened here. But if 'winning' is so critical to your ego, then I can see why you would resort to such a pathetic strawman as that.
Again, it wasn't my analogy, although I see now you wish to adopt it for your own. My original complaint about Gingrich is that he is a poor executive leader. And there has been nothing introduced so far that contradicts that assessment, thus the need for your sophomoric condescension.
Very interesting read...
I wonder if this is one of the reasons for their divorce. He found out what she was trying to do?
(no link)
Gingrich should pay heed to the right
Chicago Sun-Times - Monday, July 28, 1997
Author: Robert Novak
At a House Republican leadership meeting last Tuesday, Speaker Newt Gingrich was calmly discussing whether a special conference of all GOP members should be held the next evening. Then somebody mentioned that a leader of the botched coup attempt, Rep. Lindsey Graham , would surely speak. At that point, the speaker exploded.
Plotters of any future attempt to oust him, Gingrich indicated, would be driven out of the party. Primary election challengers to them would be financed by the National Republican Congressional Committee.
But the Wednesday night conference turned out to be something like a tent revival. A conciliatory Gingrich (following the advice of his old mentor, Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott) cited a quotation from Romans: “Bless those who persecute you.”
Will the overheated or the controlled Gingrich be seen in the difficult days to come? Will he try to reassure members of the sophomore class who once looked to him as their mentor, or will he expel them into the wilderness?
I asked Rep. Henry Hyde of Illinois, the elder statesman of House Republicans, what Gingrich should do next. Hyde’s pithy advice: “I think he has to pay attention to the conservatives who were the main body of the dissidents. His biggest support now comes from the moderates.”
(snip)
In the ‘80s, Gingrich frequently warned about his party’s leaders - even Ronald Reagan - losing contact with their base. I asked the speaker about that after the conference, and he responded: “This is a party which has always been led by a center-right coalition.”
Gingrich said this coalition includes non-conservatives who all are to the right of - and preferable to - their Democratic alternatives: New York Mayor Rudolph Giuliani, Los Angeles Mayor Richard Riordan and New Jersey Gov. Christine Whitman. He also cited GOP members of Congress - Representatives Christopher Shays and Nancy Johnson of Connecticut and especially ardent environmentalist Boehlert. He then suggested the center-right coalition must deal with “the right.”
(snip)
Oops, meant to ping you to post #69.
Yes from all I remember it was the Repubs that drove him out.
I always understood it was Livingston that was the driving force.
IMO, when all the ethics issues started to be known, that all of the Repubs who had run on being squeaky clean (no such thing)had to get Gingrich out. Especially when he was doing much worse that ole Fort Worthless Wrong.
(no link)
GINGRICH ‘S DEPARTURE RECALLS HIS FAST RISE \ HE PUT BLAME ON OTHERS, AS DID THE MAN HE REPLACED
Philadelphia Inquirer, The (PA) - Sunday, November 8, 1998
Author: David Hess, INQUIRER WASHINGTON BUREAU
(snip)
It might have been a reasonable argument from the ivory tower of a college political scientist. Among the restive conservatives in the House, it was an act of sedition.
As the conservatives, led by Reps. David M. McIntosh (R., Ind.) and Steve Largent (R., Okla.), seethed over the budget deal, the country moved ahead to the Nov. 3 congressional elections. For House Republicans, the outcome was a stunning setback. After expecting to pick up as many as 30 seats , they lost five - narrowing their already slim majority to 223-212 and worsening their prospect for achieving their goals.
And that was the opening for Gingrich ‘s detractors, providing the excuse for moving to depose him, a move that had every appearance of becoming successful. His leadership had been sorely tested, they argued, and found wanting.
``We have to have new leadership or we will lose the majority in 2000,’’ said Rep. Tom Coburn of Oklahoma, a social conservative who has long harbored doubts about Gingrich ‘s ideological purity and leadership skills.
``I think you can’t get there from here with Gingrich leading the team,’’ added Rep. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, who spearheaded an abortive coup against the speaker last year following Gingrich ‘s rebuke by the House ethics committee for lying to the panel about the source of money for some college courses he designed and taught.
Gingrich has complained to his closest allies that his tormentors do not understand what it takes to govern in a diverse society, that philosophical flexibility is indispensable to getting things done.
But his detractors insist that it is Gingrich who has lost his way.
First, they say, Gingrich buckled in 1995 when President Clinton resisted the GOP’s substantial budget cuts in a wide range of federal programs and the government shut down. To this day, many House conservatives believe they could have won that argument if Gingrich had stuck to the message and faced Clinton down.
Instead, the President deftly portrayed the Gingrich -led Republicans as irresponsible radicals and restored his own flagging popularity as a tough-minded leader. In the next congressional elections, in 1996, Democrats picked up a number of seats and reduced Gingrich ‘s House majority, making the task of managing his fractious forces even more difficult.
Then came the ethics mess. In 1997, Gingrich had to admit wrongdoing and pony up a $300,000 fine to reimburse Congress for part of the cost of the inquiry.
Weakened by that episode, Gingrich seemed ripe for dethroning as a band of young turks, led by Graham , conspired with Majority Leader Dick Armey and Whip Tom DeLay, both of Texas, to unseat him.
But Armey, at the last minute, demurred and most Republican mainstreamers rallied behind Gingrich , thwarting the coup - but inflicting a wound in party unity that never fully healed.
Largely unspoken in the post-mortems of Gingrich ‘s tenure was the difficulty of fulfilling the dual role he played as the speaker of the House - traditionally a figure who tries to rise above the meanness of partisan politics - and as the self-appointed minister of Republican propaganda and provocation.
``In the end,’’ said Perry of Sweet Briar College, ``he became too hot for his party after becoming too hot for centrist voters who saw him as a disturbing figure.’’
Last spring, when the Oval Office sex scandal was commanding center stage, Gingrich weighed in with sharp criticism of the President’s moral lapses and pledged he would ``never make another speech without mentioning it.’’
What Gingrich neglected to foresee was the backlash from moderate voters who deplored Clinton ‘s behavior but did not think it rated the guillotine. The same voters perceive Gingrich as a highly partisan and divisive figure, whose own ethics had been held up to scrutiny. Gingrich soon drew back from openly chastising Clinton .
(snip)
That sounds very familiar. I guess I resent him for all that trouble. the Contract with America was great. but all of the nastiness really turned me against Newt. Haven’t forgotten it, I guess.
Fannie stuff and IMO the Cain mess proves to me he hasn’t changed. ( I think he was behind the Cain stories)
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2819114/posts?page=46#46
To: fightinJAG; AllPlease view this video series where Newt expresses his principles, his understanding of our founding principles and ideals, his ideas on running against Obama and the socialist left, and notice the stark differences in knowledge, understanding and grasp of domestic and world affairs, freedom vs socialism, contrasting viewpoints, substance, style, even speaking ability (no notes, no teleprompter, etc) as compared to Obama (or even McCain, Romney, establishment GOP, et al).
It'd be a great pleasure for me to campaign, support and vote for someone I can really agree with on most issues, respect, appreciate and get excited about rather than holding my nose and just voting against the lesser of two weevils.
In Part 1, Newt challenges the Wake County GOP to do all it can in 2012 to make Barack Obama a 1 term president. He discusses energy policy, our debt crisis, the president's failure to lead on Libya, one nation under God, the Declaration of Independence and unalienable rights.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rpa4aCiP1CwIn Part 2 Newt addresses the way left wing government erodes American Exceptionalism, why religious freedom is opposed by dictatorships, the work ethic, unemployment compensation, economic growth, 2+2=4, and government barriers to job creation.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y42oQgOb7OEIn Part 3, Newt discusses the importance of litigation reform, a more favorable tax code for job creation including abolishing the capital gains and death tax, and executive orders that should be signed on the first day the new president takes office. [Abolish all W/H czars, reinstate Reagan bans on taxpayer money for abortion, etc].
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GMFV5h-wi7kIn Part 4, Newt confronts the sobering fact that ten years after 9/11 we are not yet winning in our conflict with radical Islamists. He draws analogies with the Cold War about how we need to rethink our strategies. He also discusses the Libyan engagement.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2BBxe24DwPI46posted on Monday, December 12, 2011 12:15:27 AMby Jim Robinson
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.