Posted on 04/16/2006 1:43:32 PM PDT by Bob J
Ya I know, but I didn't write it...;).
Bob, I'm afraid Mr. Skinner nails it here.
No.
And "Bob", I'm beginning to think it actually IS Newt, That doesn't mean we don't appreciate what "your candidate" has done in the past -- because we do.
And it doesn't mean that there won't be useful important work for "your candidate" to do in the future -- "your candidate" is a brilliant political tactition and analyst. He'll make more money OUT of Office.
It's just that "your candidate" has had too many successes that libs will never forgive him for,
And too many failures that conservatives will never forgive.
Don't you remember Time's "The Gingrich Who Stole Christmas" cover? There was a full court effort to smear him and paint him as a bad guy.
Personally, I put Newt right up there with Reagan as one of the greatest 20th century conservatives.
When I posted my reply to you I was really thinking more about "train-wreck of a personal life" part and probably should not have quoted the "pomposity" portion. As for the AF1 scandal, screw the media.
I would probably vote for Newt because he is a good communicator and and has good ideas. But, I have concerns:
1. I can't remember why he resigned---didn't it have to do with a book deal? But, as I recall, I didn't think what he did was that wrong (if wrong at all) and I think he paid a big chunk of money to someone as a penalty. Can you give us the details?
2. His personal life has been a problem. Of course, many of us have had problems there. But, the stories I've heard about Newt make you question his personal loyalty. An update on the exact facts of those stories about his personal life would be helpful.
3. Would he stand a chance? The media would be all over him as would, even, some Republicans. Could he overcome that?
I do prefer him to McCain, without question. As to Giuliani, he's got a lot going for him too in my opinion, though I don't think he's as knowledgeable as Newt. He might be more charismatic. His personal life is slightly better I think.
But his multiple divorces and the questionable circumstances around those events cannot be ignored.
BTW, the last one caused him to have to resign as a deacon, I believe, in his own church.
Anyway, his ideas and words are powerful, but the man is too flawed for leadership...
AOK.
His extramarital affairs. I believe the media and the public are far more forgiving toward Rudy or Clinton than they would be toward Newt. Not fair, I know.
BOOKMARKED for future SS arguments.
Newt has it right.
Thanks for the ping.
Newt stepped down after the pubs lost five House seats in the '98 midterms. There was much knashing of teeth going on a power struggle ensued.
Are you having a nice Easter? :)
Newt? Forgetaboutit. He's so 10-years ago. His marital problems will prevent any chance of victory for him.
We do not need to DRAFT Newt. We need to HIRE Newt for the Republican party. Newt can fire up the troops like few others. He has a brilliant mind and can articulate issues that we tune out because they are so mangled by the congress and the media to the extent we do not know what the truth is. Newt can help recruit viable candidates for office as well. I say we hire him yesterday and put him to work 24/7 thru the fall elections. Then he can have a short vacation and get to work on 2008. Newt's personal life is not at issue here unless he becomes a political candidate. If he does not behave we can fire him. Are you listening Newt? Are you listening Republican party?
Yes, thank you. I have talked to all my children and g-children, but I didn't get an Easter basket this year. :(
Counter Insurgency is a strange bastard style of war. It is not total war but it is also more then the Leftist" Police matter". The other thing most old Cast Iron Conservatives forget is the political aspect. Iraq was doable. We had the political consensus to do it.
So since we needed a kill zone we could suck the terrorists into and we needed to get the American people to support the cost, there was no other choice BUT Iraq.
Want to really blow the Leftists minds? Tell them this. Even if Al Gore won in 2000 and 9-11 happened the USA would STILL be doing the same thing now in Iraq. Iraq was doable militarily and politically. There was no other place for the US to go. Iraq is basically the same deal as the invasions of Italy was in 1943
Here in a nutshell, is the military reason for Iraq. The War on Terrorism is different sort of war. In the war on Terrorism, we have a hidden foe, spread out across a geographically diverse area, with covert sources of supply. Since we cannot go everywhere they hide out, in fact often cannot even locate them until the engage us, we need to draw them out of hiding into a kill zone. Iraq is that kill zone.
That is the true brilliance of the Iraq strategy. We draw the terrorists out of their world wide hiding places onto a battlefield they have to fight on for political reasons (The "Holy" soil of the Arabian peninsula) where they have to pit their weakest ability (Conventional Military combat power) against our greatest strength (ability to call down unbelievable amounts of firepower) where they will primarily have to fight other forces (the Iraqi Security forces) in a battlefield that is hostile to guerrilla warfare. (Iraqi-mostly open terrain as opposed to guerrilla friendly areas like the mountains of Afghanistan or the jungles of SE Asia).
There are other reasons to do Iraq but that is the military reason we are in Iraq. We have taken, an maintain the initiative from the Terrorists. They are playing OUR game on ground of OUR choosing.
Problem is Counter Insurgency is SLOW and painful. Often a case of 3 steps forward, two steps back. I often worry that the American people have neither the maturity, nor the intellect" to understand. It's so much easier to spew made for TV slogans like "No Blood for Oil" or "We support the Troops, bring them home" then to actually THINK. Problem is these people have NO desire to co-exist with us. They see all this PC posturing by the Hysteric Left as a sign that we are weak. Since they want us dead, weakness encourages them. They think their "god" will bless them for killing Westerners.
So we can covert to Islam, die or kill them. Iraq is about killing enough of them to make the rest realize we are serious. See in the Arab world the USA is considered a big wimp. We have run away so many times. Lebanon, the Kurds, the Iraqis in 1991, the Iranians, Somalia, Clinton all thru the 1990s etc etc etc. The Jihadists think we will run again. In fact they are counting on it. That way they can run around screaming "We beat the American just like the Russians, come join us in Jihad" and recruit the next round of "holy warriors". Iraq is also a show place where we show the Muslim world that there are a lines they cannot cross. On 9-11 they crossed that line and we can, and will, destroy them for it
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.