Skip to comments.Gingrich Now Seeking a New Contract (with America)
Posted on 11/13/2004 1:05:45 PM PST by wagglebee
WASHINGTON - Newt Gingrich is preparing to unfurl a new Contract with America.
The last time he did so, the ideas catapulted Republicans to a majority in the House for the first time in a half century. Now the former House speaker is plotting a way to keep conservatives in power "for a generation or more." Yet it is Democrats who are being urged to look to him for inspiration as they contemplate their future in the minority.
"A 21st Century Contract with America" is the subject of a book scheduled for release in January.
(Excerpt) Read more at nysun.com ...
I personally think that Newt is lousy in a leadership position, but does an incredible job getting the Republican base fired up.
That's what I'm talkin bout.
I think Newt and Cosby are on the same page about the the younger generation, particularly the minorities. They're the future of the country.
I watched Newt's GOPAC speech. He is calling it like it is.
I suggested they team up and get to work. It's the right time.
It would erode some of the, taken for granted base, that the Dem's drag out every 4 years.
"I personally think that Newt is lousy in a leadership position"
Do you mean politically? I think he would be great policy wise. I thought his 1994 sweep and subsequent changes was a monumental achievement. I have a lot of admiration for him. The only time I haven't thought highly of him was one time when he appeared on the 'tavis smiley show' and started agreeing with Tavis's criticism of Republicans and talking like a democrat.
I read his first book and will buy this one too. I think he is a great American.
Newt is a visionary and much better as a Wizard of Oz type figure. He should never have been at the forefront of our movement.
oh and I LOVED his speech against the state department:
I'm certainly prepared to have a look at it. Newt was too shrill and negative to be a successful candidate for the presidency, but he certainly fired up the base, brought in the revolution, and prepared the way for the Bush presidency. It cost clinton almost $100 million in PR propaganda to demonize him, and in the end Newt helped out with some unfortunate compromises and behavior lapses.
But who knows, maybe he's back on track again. He deserves a listen.
I enjoy Speaker Gingrich every time I see him appear to give his opinion on a subject usually to do with politics.
His ability to think in easily understood terms must come from his work teaching students, because he never bores, nor does he pontificate, but tells it like it is and when he is done, there is little to argue with.
I don't know how he was as an active politician, but I would say he has find his "home" as an author and communicator, and an expert in many things political when he passes his information along to the general public in that easy rhythm he adopts.
He is an easy "listen" and I look forward to reading his new advice to the government members.
That was great, wasn't it??!
J.C. Watts was also brilliant.
I guess it's true, Opinions really are like a*******.
oh boy. I hope the republicans keep Newt's hands off the levers of power. I think the early '90's movement of the republicans happened at a grassroots level and swept upwards. Newt rode the wave and took too much credit for himself. He is an opportunist.
I think that Newt's tone is to abrasive to be in a "front-line" leadership position. Some people are good at that and others aren't, Newt is better behind the scenes. (For what it's worth, I think the 'Rats will eventually find out that Hitlery is the exact same way.) The Speaker of the House NEEDS to have a cordial or at least civil working relationship with the President, regardless of political differences. I think that Newt brought too much of his personal animosity toward Klintoon into the 1995 budget stand-off and it blew up in his face big time.
I think it's better to let Newt "lay the foundation" and advise behind the scenes. He should let someone else be the frontline leader.
I've heard Republicans trashing the Contract With America which was one of the most inspiring and influential political documents/strategies of the 20th century, and they usually can't tell you why they are trashing it or Gingrich.
I think the media instructed a lot of negativity about Newt on to the masses because they considered him dangerous to liberalism.
Enjoy your Thankgiving liberals!
Abolish the federal income tax!
The Contract With America was a stroke of political genius. It culminated Newt's 15 year effort, from backbench bomb-throwing radical to architect of the GOP takeover of the Congress. Call Newt whatever you want. The facts speak for themselves. Conservatives have been in some pretty good hands over the last 25 years. It's not been a perfect endeavor, but Reagan, Limbaugh, Gingrich and Bush43 have advanced conservatism like no one else before them.
Can't wait to get the book.
Newt is good.
Abolish every department of the federal government that did not exist in 1789.
The President is doing a pretty good job with his 'contract'. Tax and social security reform, faith based initiatives. Unfortunately he let Ted Kennedy write the education bill.
I think one of the ways to 'build up' our majority is for the President to make his Opportunity Zones more prominent. I would love to see more African-Americans join the party. Jim
That's the way I see it- Newt was and is a superb tactician- I was present in the early nineties when he was working up to the Contract, and his moves were brilliant. Once in the forefront, however, he did not do well. Some of that was due to the MSM, which, while we knew it was biased, we were blissfully unaware of how pervasive that bias was. But I agree with you- he's best when working in the background and directing.
And I really think that the 'Rats will find out that they have the same problem with Hitlery.
What's that saying about pioneers being the ones with all the arrows in their backs?
I was a moderate republican until I heard Newt speak in 1994 about the conservative revolution. His speeches really inspired me and I've been a foot soldier ever since.
Reagan did the same thing for many people. Newt, in my opinion, lacks the widespread "likability" of Reagan (or even Bill Clinton from what I've been told). Newt was simply unable to work effectively with the Democrats, people have said he took everything too personally.
I don't think Newt brought about the 94 majorities but he sure saw them coming and got out in front of it. He is very intellegent man, and a lot of fun to watch on Fox.
The media knew the danger of Gingrich and mustered all resources to take him down.
Very funny! And, so true. I was trying to think of some response to what he said, and you, very concisely, summed it up.
"I think it's better to let Newt "lay the foundation" and advise behind the scenes. He should let someone else be the frontline leader."
You may be right about this. But I do think as someone previously mentioned, the 94 'coup' is one of the most significant changes in the political landscape in the 20th Century. To what degree Newt was personally responsible for it can be debated, but I do think he is not a 'status quo' type leader and those types of people are the ones that change history in meaningful ways. There is a quote that 'history is a smooth stubborn continuous thing, jerked only by the actions of impeteous men'.
I think it is possible that much of your belief that Newt was 'stubborn and confrontational' may lie in the media's portrayal of him. I think the average person has a negative perception of Newt becasue of media bias. Similar to how the Media portrays the 'neo-conservatives', Rumsfeld, Ashcroft etc...
A few years ago I actually started to believe that the worst the MSM portraryed someone, the more intelligent, brave, principled, and conservative they tended to be. So, I dunno... as of now I would support Newt in a public leadership position, but am open to the possibiltiy that he works best behinds the scene - which is what he is doing now. Especially in Health care.
I was disapointed by his support for this Medicaid monstrosity. He never made the reasons for his support clear (or at least the media didn't give much coverage too them). I think he gained political capital with the Bush admin for his support. But if he sacrificed prinicipal for political capital then he loooses my respect.
Last time I saw Newt, mr small government, mr free enterprise, had become a paid lobbyist for one of the groups advocating the medicare drug bill...Big government, No competition. A bombastic phony baloney.
I've met Newt and think he's a great guy. However, I've talked to a number of people who saw first-hand how he was when he was Speaker, he was unwilling to compromise and it caused a lot of havoc for all of the Republicans in Congress. The 1995 budget fiasco created the perfect media opportunity to boost Clinton's ratings and propel him to a second term.
It blew up in *Newt's* face, yes, and sure Clinton was reelected (Bob Dole was no threat and we all knew it), impeachment won out but removal failed but the Republicans have maintained or extended their majority except for when that fraud Jimbo Jeffords turned traitor. In terms of domestic policy, Clinton was prohibited from doing any serious damage and, amazingly, there were even a few balanced budgets. Tragically, Clinton was not prevented from undermining our national security (9-11) even though Republicans harped about military cuts, intelligence cuts, over deployments, etc. endlessly.
Further, Bush won in 2000, defied tradition and inceased the majority in 2002, and won *huge* in 2004 despite the Democrat's best efforts. How have the Republicans been hurt in the past 10 years due to that budget stand-off? Thanks to the 1994 Republican sweep, the country was generally hurt by only things that the Executive controlled: national security, foreign policy. Something might be said, however, that Congressional oversight was lacking on intelligence especially since it was so concerned with impeachment.
Clinton was great at winning tactical victories for himself but he ultimately failed to do anything for his party. Now it looks like they're on the verge of moving further left (Howard Dean, Michael Moore).
I saw Newt's GOPAC speech as well. I thought it was excellent. Every time I hear him speak, he comes across as very knowledgeable, historically rooted due to his education, and highly visionary. He might not have been the greatest tactician when he was in office, but he has always been, and continues to be, one of the greatest Repub thought leaders.
The Clinton's and the media waited until after the elections of 94 to go after Newt. The Clintons wanted a bogeyman and they got one. Then they killed off the '94 revolution and they go reelected in '96.
IIRC, Gingrich didn't honor his "contract" with his second wife.
Has he done anything about that, as far as you know? Or are we supposed to do like Clinton's enablers did? "It's his personal life, character doesn't count, he did good work for us"?
Saw the GOPAC speech. Newt is awesome.
No he just divorced his wife and paid her off.
I want Newt back in government where he belongs.
I agree. Newt's a good man, and he can do a lot for us in the position he is in now.
Newt's not perfect as a legislator, but he's a brilliant visionary.
And-he nailed the election on the head this past summer. He pretty much called it back in August.
After cheating on her. Ugh. So we're just supposed to "move on," let him advise the nation in "family values." Dang, the Donks must laugh at us. I hate when they have a valid reason.
This is one of the reasons I don't want Newt back in office. However, the man's brilliant and a good behind-the-scenes guy. Use him for what he's good for. Marital morality isn't one of them. He's writing a book, not running for President for Pete's sake!
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.