Posted on 01/05/2013 6:36:51 AM PST by Kaslin
This time I should’ve been the one listening.
But listening can be tough sometimes when you’re an analyst and a commentator, and people around the country – listeners, readers, media, candidates, causes, businesses, etc. – come to you to find out why things are happening and what may happen next. Analysis and commentary is one of the few things in life I’m really good at. My car expertise begins and ends with changing a tire. Any toy that comes with the phrase “some assembly required” my kids immediately take to my wife. And when that much-anticipated Zombie apocalypse finally happens I’m going to have to heavily rely upon my gun-toting “doomsday prepper” friends to survive.
But analysis and commentary I can do. It’s how I provide for my family, and since it puts food on my kids’ table regularly somebody must think I’m pretty decent at it. Yet this time I swung and missed.
I am 39-years old so a little young for the Reagan era. I wasn’t legally able to obtain a driver’s license yet when Reagan left office. Like many my age, my conservatism was actually honed by listening to Rush Limbaugh and cheering on Newt Gingrich and the Republican Revolution of 1994. In my era, Gingrich is a transformative figure. He’s still the only man alive to win a national election on conservative principles. He played a part in establishing much of the conservative infrastructure we take for granted nowadays. There are only two authors I ever sought autographed books from: Bo Schembechler and Gingrich.
Yet despite my fan boy crush, I am well aware of his peccadilloes. He’s on his third marriage. He lost the Speaker’s gavel because of a caucus revolt against his leadership. He inexcusably backed Dede Scozzafava. He rightly stood up against the TARP, and then reversed course and backed what I believe may be the most criminal legislation in American history. These are just some of the reasons why several people close to me told me I was making a mistake when I endorsed him for president during the 2012 primary.
Yet I pointed to the fact he is one of the few national figures in the GOP that has the wit and knowledge to effectively communicate what we believe in today’s short-attention-span-society, which I believe is very important to our movement going forward. He was the only candidate last year that was really speaking to what I believe is the biggest threat to liberty and morality in America—judicial supremacy (which is really the judicial oligarchy Jefferson warned us about). And I was also impressed with the way Gingrich was willing to speak openly about his past moral transgressions, including one very blunt joint appearance on my radio show with Donald Wildmon of the American Family Association. As a Christian I’m a sucker for a good redemption story.
However, there’s a reason I have often compared Gingrich to King David in the Bible, beyond the marriage infidelity both have in common. Both were also extraordinarily God-gifted leaders whose legacies were tarnished by their slack of self-discipline. Both were often at their best when pursuing power and at their worse once they obtained it.
While on vacation I was reminded of that comparison when I saw Gingrich say that Republicans should accept the destruction of marriage as “inevitable.” As a historian Gingrich should know better. He should know that marriage and free market economics are the essential societal bedrock components of western civilization, without which liberty isn’t possible. I know firsthand he should know that, because he has communicated right to my face that he does.
In a letter to The Family Leader just 13 months ago, Gingrich said:
“As president I will vigorously enforce the Defense of Marriage Act. I will aggressively defend the constitutionality of DOMA in state and federal courts. I will support a federal constitutional amendment (defending marriage). I will oppose any judicial, bureaucratic, or legislative effort to redefine marriage.”
So which is it, Newt? Do you want to defend marriage or not? Those words do not read like someone who thought destroying marriage was “inevitable?” Did you mean them?
For the past week Gingrich has been rightly urging conservatives to fight the fiscal cliff tax increase. Maybe Gingrich should be urging us to surrender instead, being that our slide towards bankrupt statism seems “inevitable” after all. As a father with three small children at home, I’m looking for leaders who will fight to stop our “inevitable” destruction as a free republic, not come to grips with it. Especially on an issue like marriage, that is 31-4 (89%) at the ballot box.
Gingrich was arguably the most gifted political figure of his era. He could’ve been an American Churchill. Check that, he should have been. Despite all that he has accomplished (which I’m thankful for) his legacy still includes a waste of potential. He could’ve led us out of the wilderness. Instead we’re still circling the mountain (or the drain).
Several of you warned me about this, which is why despite his obvious gifts Gingrich failed not once but twice to coalesce conservatives when he was the presidential frontrunner. Some of you were once bitten and twice shy. Now I get it.
I still have a soft spot for Newt, and he’s still one of the few politicians I’ve met whose intellect I actually respect. But that’s not enough to believe he should hold the highest office of this land. If someone won’t defend marriage, the oldest institution in God’s created order, then what can you count on them to defend when it’s hard?
Those of you that warned me were right. I was wrong. This time I should’ve listened to your analysis.
Ahhhhh......blue skies.....the sun is shining......a great cup of coffee.....let’s see what’s going on with Free Republic..............oh, the world is ending. Well, couldn’t happen on a prettier day.
I'm not ready to give up, it's too important, I just don't see an answer yet.
Prayer. Deep thinking. Tactical changes. New leadership from the right people.
We'll see.
When has the toe sucker ever been right in his predictions? Never
Newt : “Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich said Friday that the upcoming showdown over the debt ceiling isn’t a political winner for House Republicans, but dubbed it a “dead loser.”
“They’ve got to find, in the House, a totally new strategy,” Gingrich said on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe.” “Everybody’s now talking about, ‘Oh, here comes the debt ceiling.’ I think that’s, frankly, a dead loser. Because in the end, you know, it’s gonna happen. The whole national financial system is going to come in to Washington and on television and say: ‘Oh my God, this will be a gigantic heart attack, the entire economy of the world will collapse. You guys will be held responsible.’ And they’ll cave. ”
Newt Gingrich warns GOP on debt ceiling(1/4/2013, Newt video on Politico)
Sounds likely, Newt should know.
Contrary to talk radio mythology Newt caved to Clinton after three government shutdowns and early 2006 gave him (Clinton) the CR he demanded , then Clinton got easily re-elected.
This type of thing only works if the other side thinks they will get the blame. Doesn't the budget run out at about the same time? Obama is going to want lots of extended spending there. Why not tie the debt ceiling to a budget, and other spending bills?
whats the point ??? the PR will mount that the 'R's are being obstructionists, nevermind the lack of a budget from the sinate for 3 yrs...
almost better at this point to get one of those cardboard publishers clearinghouse checks, march up onto the capitol steps, and present the signed, blank check to bambam and proclaim that from this day *forward*, its his baby to do what he wants...let it crash and burn 100% on him...
anything else is going to be a repeated losing game in the media, and just pisses *us* off over and over...
During the peak of Noooooooooooooot mania in last year's Presidential primary, anyone who pointed out this fact to history revisionists was swiftly attacked by legions of Newt fans and threatened with banning.
Unfortunately for them, most FReepers are old enough to remember what happened in the 90s. Newt had squandered away all his authority by 1996 and his approval ratings were in the toilet by late '98 (and had been for quite some time), making him a national joke and punching bag for the RATs to tarnish any Republican by tying them to "Newt Gingrich"
Clinton's re-election was bad enough (everyone though he would be a one-termer in 1994) but it was completely disgraceful that we actually LOST a net total of 5 seats during the '98 midterm election when Clinton and the Dems were embroiled in Monicagate. Unfortunately for us, "beloved conservative leader" Newt was busy boinking mistress Callista behind the scenes.
Yes, culture is a part of the equation, but I am not sure it is necessarily the primary factor. Socialism is like a drug that infects and poisons populations that fall for it. It's an easy sell for politicians, running as Santa Claus always is. Even many culturally conservative populations in South America, parts of Asia, etc, have fallen under the spell of socialism and wrecked their economies. Don't forget, FDR won 4 times (3 times before our entry into the war) running on radical, far left populist policies that Obama could only dream of. Take a look at FDR's proposed second bill of rights of 1944 which was pure socialism - and a much more socially conservative public than we have now approved of him and his economic ideas.
The problem is, starting at the federal level, the constitution simply does not do enough to prevent socialism. One day when our society collapses and the good guys are around to rebuild, the new constitution will need to very, very, very specifically write out any opportunity for socialism to creep in. If the states want to try socialist experiments, fine (they have to compete with one another), but it can not be allowed to happen at the federal level.
But I thought the whole idea was to get House Rs to be the ‘obstructionists’. So afterward when we claim the the media made Rs look like ‘obstructionists’ it sounds kind of lame.
This is the problem. If being painted ‘obstructionists’ is bad then from the start the goal should be to paint the other side as it while doing it, not afterward when its too late (then complain about the media again). Dems know this.
I have heard a few Dems actually complain that they are worried that Democrats might get a bad deal from the debt limit fight. Not saying my hopes are up though.
I think you are talking about exactly a year ago January 2012. The hopes were running high back then that Newt could win a few states from Romney so it was best just to tone it down here on him for about a month till that hope ran its course, which happened fast.
But even long before that I would get a few who would swear to me that Newt won a huge victory back then and was a role model for all other Speakers,
but I still remember those days and after Newt lost that fight Fed gubment employees I knew here who got paid for all three shutdown weeks off, and another whole free week for the late 1995 blizzard too, all on top of their regular generous leave. Yes, the shutdowns cost more money in the end. This made Republicans look like fools at the time.
Newt had a problem that he would open his mouth and say stuff that would give weapons to Dems to beat him in these fights,
Newt was always doing that.
If you are going to win a shutdown fight you must convince voters that its the Dem who is doing it, he is being unreasonable, petty, etc, you are being responsible, doing the best for the country, willing to go halfway. Its a stage,
Now in this case some of the taxes going up is an advantage House Republicans have in this fight that they didn't have in 2011.
“You got your way on taxes Mr President now its time to cut spending, You have taxed this country enough. tax and tax and tax, that is the only thing Dems know. ”,
see??? It works much better if Obama actually raised some taxes DUHHH!
2011 and 2012 were the misread delusional years for many Republicans :
“Americans will come out in mass and demand more tax cuts for 'job creators' (ie Mitt, Buffet, Forbes) , together with increased military spending while all other spending like entitlements are cut (except those right NOW >55) , and Dems wont come out and vote especially that 47%, and Obama probably wont run, and 2013 this country will be a conservative Mecca”
Well it didn't happen, that was never going happen.
I agree it will take more than a political fix, but the fix will necessarily include political elements too. I’ll go look at the post to SOTC you mentioned also...
If you recall I was the one who brought up that Newt could beat 0bama in the debates, even with 0bama using his teleprompters.
Had we won, he would have been perfect as adviser to the president elect. Whoever It had been on our side
“On the contrary...”
Hardly on the contrary. Churchill cannot be dismissively separated from his WWII greatness.
Newt can be dismissed as the political and sexual opportunist that he is.
I think Newt’s problem is that he listens to too many of his establishment consultants. I personally know that at least one of them is a blithering idiot, and yet has Newt’s ear.
This of course does not excuse Newt for any of this, as he is absolutely to be held responsible for which advice he heeds and which he does not. I only know that he gets a lot of bad advice, and he acts accordingly, though I cannot say for sure what the causal relationship is.
You make some good points, but I do not agree with your conclusion. Like SOTC, I think your points actually speak to why we MUST have a bold articulate and fearless conservative message - to cut through all of the problems you mentioned.
I will send you a copy of my soon to be released book that addresses all of this. I am putting finishing touches on it this weekend. You can view some info on it at a temporary url www.gone2012book.com
The real URL is not launched yet.
That’s a sad list. Makes me miss Ross Perot.
Newt Gingrich calls Republican Debt Ceiling Threat a 'Dead Loser'
“In 20/20 hindsight, I think he would have fared far worse than Romney, as would have the entire conservative bench.”
i must agree; tho, i think Newt would have eviscerated Obama in the debates, but the MSM’s 24/7 propaganda organ for Obama would have crucified him during the general election campaign. it still would have been a pleasure to watch Newt go after them in response to their relentless attacks: like David vs Goliath without the same outcome. what a spectacle: what a pity.
They could have simply made Pelosi Speaker on Thursday with their votes, announce that Dems won, then vote against everything she puts up since they have the majority. (but occasionally there would be defectors)
That would have been the best way to make such a cynical play. Gets rid of Bohner too. But this is just more dreaming.
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.