Posted on 12/15/2011 1:17:55 PM PST by Windy City Conservative
Gingrich has been a ubiquitous analyst on the war — ubiquity being one of the tireless, outsized former House speaker’s favorite qualities. In between appearances in his role as a commentator for the Fox News Channel, Gingrich announced on Meet the Press that we are in the midst of World War III. A few days later, Hezbollah declared that it welcomed World War III, nicely capturing the moment: Simultaneous with its shooting war with Israel, Hezbollah is in a war of words with Newt Gingrich.
The old conventional wisdom about Gingrich was that we wouldn’t have him to kick around anymore. The new conventional wisdom is that he’s back, and he’s doing the kicking. Ousted by his own party after its losses in the 1998 midterm elections, Gingrich has reestablished himself as a party leader through sheer intellectual energy. He has had something intelligent to say about literally every issue of the hour, from health care to Katrina to the war on terror. “He has helped himself immensely — he’s all over the place,” says former Republican National Committee Chairman Ed Gillespie.
(Excerpt) Read more at nationalreview.com ...
In other words National Review would like campaign donations to be wasted on a guy who they don't want to have win the nomination, but only help Romney improve his debating skills. This is one cynical bunch of b@#$tards, and the sooner it goes bankrupt the bette for conservativism.
I wonder what Lawry thinks today?
This was written in 2006—when George Allen was expected to be a serious candidate in 2008.
I know it was written in 2006. But Rich Lowry is the same editor who wrote their anybody but Newt article today. So why was he encouraging Newt to run for the 2008 nomination? Rich simply wanted Newt to make the other candidates better, and now that Newt is leading he is National Review is throwing everything at him. Nancy Pelosi will probably be meeting with them soon, if their latest attacks don’t work.
Bill Buckley is rolling over in his grave. Surely there are some real conservatives at NRO to contradict this crap? Nordlinger, McCarthy, Hanson?
The NRO is to Conservatism like Dollar General is to luxury goods.
Its because they hung out with Romney on one of the NRO cruises they are constantly pimping. Mittens must have bought them all drinks or something.
You could say the same thing about Newt himself. He's not quite the genuine article, though people in search of the real thing will assume that he's the best they can do.
Bill Buckley is rolling over in his grave.
How so? When you look at how Buckley was in his last years it's hard to say that he'd be much more hardline that Lowry is.
And considering how long Buckley was around and all that he saw come and go, he'd probably be smiling wrily at the Newt boom.
Agree on all points. A sad decline for what was Buckley’s flagship. Just think how he would verbally flay these poseurs!
Lowry certainly wasn't saying he would be HIS pick:
"If one of Gingrich’s strengths is that he is enamored of ideas, a weakness is that he seems too enamored of his own. He has ethical issues from his time as speaker related to a book contract and the funding of a college course he taught, but in the Age of Abramoff those scandals seem quaint. More potentially damaging is his messy personal life and the sense of arrogance that sank his speakership."
I couldn’t understand this in light of “today’s news”, which is being talked about non-stop.
So Gingrich may have grown up,ands shed his more conciliatory side (remember, he’s not talking about
the value of “working with the other side” now) while Lowry and the Republican Establishment has gotten more timid even while convincing themselves that it’s THEY who’ve grown up.
I couldn’t understand this in light of “today’s news”, which is being talked about non-stop.
So Gingrich may have grown up,ands shed his more conciliatory side (remember, he’s not talking about
the value of “working with the other side” now) while Lowry and the Republican Establishment has gotten more timid even while convincing themselves that it’s THEY who’ve grown up.
There are real conservatives there, but they aren’t pushing Newt Gingrich. They mostly are decrying NRs dismissal of the actual conservatives running in the race.
Hello Charles. Who would you suggest are the actual conservatives running in the race? And part b, who would you say are the real conservatives at NR? Just curious; I have no interest in debating our different definitions.
Only two people are running in this race, Gingrich and Romney.
And Gingrich is massively more conservative than Romney.
The other what’s there names, are just making it easier on Rommey, and the sooner they drop out the better we all will be.
There is not one sentence in that piece that could be interpreted as Lowry encouraging Newt to run.
My post was more flippant than expositive, to be sure.
I actually find many of their authors to be reliably conservative on specific issues (different issues for different authors).
Steyn can generally be counted on for either a solid conservative point, or if not, something that would make you think twice about what “conservatism” is.
I tend to agree with Rush on the other question, that Perry, Bachmann, and Santorum are the more ideologically pure and trustworthy conservatives in the race. Gingrich actually has a good conservative record, but that record is very old, and his words since then have not been very comforting to the conservative movement.
Gingrich is a pundit, an elite who makes money giving his opinion, and who has a rash of statements that are scattered across the political spectrum (as well as sometimes being contradictory). He’s sort of a pragmatist intellectual who cares more about results than principle. When his ideas are conservative, he’s great to have on your side. When you send him to take down the ubiquitous Al Gore and he ends up agreeing with the guy, you start pulling your hair out.
Sowell is also pretty conservative, and Mark Krikorian is a somewhat reliable conservative voice on many issues. Mark Levin of course used to contribute more there and was sufficiently conservative. I don’t think Mark has dumped on Gingrich as much as Steyn and Limbaugh, but he also hasn’t been particularly supportive — he seems to be a Bachman guy.
Gingrich to me is the consumate history professor. He was pretty reliably conservative in his younger days, but his intellectualism took him over to the dark side too many times. I actually think he compares to the fictional West Wing character Jeb Bartlett — who was a liberal, but being an “intellectual” would also often stray off the liberal plantation and surprise people with a conservative idea.
That’s what all the Cain supporters told me last month. And what the Perry folks told me a month earlier. And what the Bachmann people almost started telling me in August.
Funny how people want everybody to walk away from the table when the roulette ball is bouncing near THEIR candidate’s number. I assume in three weeks when Gingrich’s numbers are back down to earth that you will be supporting whoever is ahead of him?
nope, it’s Newt or nothing for me.
Romney, Paul, and Huntsman were always unacceptable.
Perry, Bachmann and Santorum, proved themselves to be unacceptable.
I will cast my vote for Newt regardless of what happens.
“There is not one sentence in that piece that could be interpreted as Lowry encouraging Newt to run.”
How about the title of the article? “Run Newt Run”. Does that count?
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.