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 ...
I implore everyone read the article in its entirety. The precarious position of Speaker requires the ability to see, think and act with intelligence - not timidity.
Tony Blankley and Dick Morris get it.
I remember back in 1990, just after Gingrich had become the GOP whip, President Bush, urged on by Gov. Sununu, was about to break his campaign pledge and raise taxes, which eventually cost him his re-election bid against Bill Clinton. It was Gingrich who opposed it. "
Good article. Thanks.
Thanks for posting. Excellent recap of Newt’s leadership.
Btt
Gingrich is crony capitalism
http://campaign2012.washingtonexaminer.com/article/newt-gingrich-was-lobbyist-plain-and-simple
Give it 10 minutes.
:(
re” #6.
See what I mean. He beat me by 90 seconds!
Newt Ping!
>> This must not be allowed to go unchallenged! Some troll/idiot must log on and start screaming “RINO- RINO” >>
Yep. I am fully aware of Newt’s short comings and his dalliances with government based tinkering and willingness to try and be accepted by some on the left. I hate all of that.
Having said that, what he did in the 90’s and the reaming he got from the entire liberal establishment is also part of Newt’s history. In fact, most of his actual accomplishments are on the conservative side while most of his liberal moments were just statements or appearances or loose cannon thoughts.
They both are part of his history - but those like Beck and others who want to ignore the good stuff are just being selective. Tony Blankley has not been officially part of Newts team in well over a decade but he is in a position to know what happened in the 90s and his recount is exactly as I remember it.
>> Gingrich is crony capitalism >>
With due respect, your post is exemplary of the mind numbed knee jerk anti Newt reaction. You post a legitimate article on Newt and crony capitalism. So how do you frame it. You over shoot and say Newt IS CRONY CAPITALISM.
That is false. If you want to say he has dabbled in it, that’s fine. But to think that in the scheme of Solyndra or even Fannie and Freddie for the most part that Newt’s part was significant is totally out of proportion. To ignore his history of accomplishment as speaker is to render yourself useless in any legitimate intellectual discussion.
I’m willing to look at both sides of the record, and have in fact for almost 20 years with Newt. Too many are looking only at one side.
It will be so nice when all the also rans have dropped out so we can end this farce of comparing Newt to people with no chance.
The only one Newt should be compared to is Romney, since it’s going to be one of them two, and the sooner we get to that point the better.
Good article ping.
And Newt Gingrich proved that he was not up to the job. Even though his Party remained in power, his leadership ability was brought into question, and he was forced to give up his leadership post. His tenure lasted as long as Nancy Pelosi's even though the Republicans would hold on to the House for another eight years.
>> The only one Newt should be compared to is Romney, since it’s going to be one of them two, and the sooner we get to that point the better. >>
You may be right on that.
Of course, I would be somewhat happy if the Newt haters would simply compare Newt to Newt. For the life of me, I have never understood the worship of some folks nor the hatred of others on this forum.
Our people are fungible fluid beings who are neither 100% nor 0% right or wrong. The only folks I care to debate are those who will at least be intellectually honest enough to discuss any of these folks within that context. What the author describes above is absolutely what happened in the 90s and we are all better off for it. Facts are facts.
Thank you for posting!
I challenge people to go to Newt’s website and read what he wants to do, and then let’s talk about what we like and do not like about policy. Isn’t that what we really need to talk about? I like almost all of his policies. I believe he will bring those same leadership skills he developed in the 90’s.
I am excited about a Newt Presidency and about him possibly picking....Santorum or Perry or Bachman as VP!
Newt stabbed in the back by his own side? Say it isn’t so. That couldn’t happen,...oh, wait, look it’s happening again.
***And Newt Gingrich proved that he was not up to the job.**
Nonsense.
His accomplishments as Speaker are listed on many FR threads. His downfall was predictable - success has many fathers - while failure is an orphan.
The GOP elites claimed Newt’s successes as their own and dumped him for 84 frivolous charges - only 1 of which was upheld and subsequently dismissed by the IRS.
There were countless times I thought to myself "he is a professional politician, and he said that?!?".
Right...the media attacked Newt with a ferociousness Sarah Palin never dreamed of, becasue HE WAS EFFECTIVE. His own side forced him out, stabbed him in the back, because rather than defend him, it was easier to cast him aside (and take his power for themselves) The media took out Newt because our side was more interested in their media polls than doing what was right.
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.