Newt's Past and Future Leadership

Real Clear Politics ^ | 12-14-2011 | Tony Blankley

[Hoodat]

The IRS has nothing at all to do with violating House rules, to which Newt admitted he did. But keep offering that IRS strawman if you must.

[MindBender26]

I agree with you totally. Right now, we need a man with his head in the right place and the balls to execute (plans or people, at this point I could not care less.)

This petty, often troll-inspired complaining is simply hurting us.

[adc]

You all are giving way too much credit to the large population of uninformed voters by hoping that Newt could win. They are not analyzing policy as you are and they never will.

[USS Alaska]

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.

Me too, except I've been actively involved in politics since 1979 when I started to go past just voting to working on the campaign for RR.

I was making big bucks [just an evil capitalist in the leasing business} and with interest rates in the high teens and low twenties, it was very hard to do business.

We still did business but jimah carther was murder on the economy.

Even back then, Newt was working for the conservative movement.

Newt is far from perfect, was not my first or second choice, but given where we are, he has become my choice for President in 2012.

I will not hang my head in shame, I will not apologize for his past sins nor his future screw ups, I will donate and work for Newt, knowing that he is a true American patriot and not a communist dupe.

barack huessein obama has proven by word and actions that he is at best a national socialist and at worst a communist with strong leanings toward the mooselimbs.

[Hoodat]

Newt stabbed in the back by his own side? Say it isn’t so.

Newt stabbed himself in the back by not following the rules. He put his own self interests ahead of the Party and ahead of the American people. If he really did have the executive abilities that everyone demands of an executive leader, then he would have retained his Speaker position for at least another eight years. As we have already learned, being the smartest guy in the room does not directly translate into executive leadership competence.

[ez]

If he really did have the executive abilities that everyone demands of an executive leader, then he would have retained his Speaker position for at least another eight years.

Wrong. Newt was taken out by his own side in a cowardly act of media damage control after the left retaliated against him and Palinized him as payback for taking out Speaker Wright. Self-interests? Laughably inaccurate. I was there and I watched it happen.

[ez]

If he really did have the executive abilities that everyone demands of an executive leader, then he would have retained his Speaker position for at least another eight years.

Wrong. Newt was taken out by his own side in a cowardly act of media damage control after the left retaliated against him and Palinized him as payback for taking out Speaker Wright. Self-interests? Laughably inaccurate. I was there and I watched it happen.

[Servant of the Cross]

Outstanding article ping. Thanks for posting.

[Hoodat]

Strong effective leaders don’t get taken out by their own side. Weak ineffective leaders do.

[ez]

Tell that to Patton and McArthur, lol.

[b9]

"It's clear now that we should have followed his advice."

Imagine if they HAD.
No Bill Clinton...

It was NEWT who saw through it all.

[PapaNew]

Encouraging article. Very interesting - looks like Gingrich, under “outsider” Reagan's tutelage, probably learned the art of negotiating with the opposition, something at which Reagan was a master.

Reagan knew some things were less important and negotiable and other things were not. He was not just combative. Sounds like Gingrich is the same way. But there were certain things Reagan on which would never compromise. In assessing the “ayes” and “nays” in his battles with Congress, Reagan knew he had something more if needed than the “ayes” in Congress. Reagan had a trump card that he would use when necessary – the American people. I’ve never seen an POTUS go directly to the American people the way Reagan did (maybe FDR, before I was around).

Reagan, when necessary, would bypass the Washington establishment, state his case to the American people (it was always a case for their benefit), and tell them if they believed in what he was trying to do (for example, let them keep more of their own hard-earned money to use it as they saw fit instead of giving it away to some distant Washington bureaucrat who would spend it as he saw fit), they should call their Congressmen and women and tell them how they need to vote (for the tax-cut, for example) and they would watch how they voted. He usually got the votes. This is obviously a rare trait in our leaders in Washington because so few do it (actually Obama did earlier and very effectively). I hope Gingrich understands the effectiveness of going directly to this powerful extra and usually winning vote in Congress - the American people.

[Dubya-M-DeesWent2SyriaStupid!]

Thank you for your thoughtful post.I appreciate this a lot more than just people calling me a troll.I supported Gingrich up until a few days ago.DC is dangerous and one big crony game on both sides of the aisle.(Look at the phoney bill they tried to pass to cease insider trading within DC) Newt is an insider I have decided.I don’t know if any political candidate can stop this train wreck but I see Bachmann and Perry as a slightly better chance.Possibly even Santorum.I sadly see this entire primary as Romney in the end and am sad to the depth of my soul that people like Bachmann were dissed all because of someone that didn’t run.I am not at this time willing to settle for Gingrich.

[C. Edmund Wright]

>> My observations were that as he moved to the top, he also moved to the left (BUT certainly not into 0bama’s neighborhood of karl marx strasse) when he got to the top, he usually stepped in it with both feet and then proceeded to track it in on the carpet. >>

I think that’s pretty accurate. I think the media reaming he got in the 90’s was the precursor to what Palin got. He got creamed, and I think it knocked him back some and I think he moved left sometimes to try and make it relent. I am hoping he has learned from that.

In today’s world, he’ll have a more conservative congress (if any GOP candidate wins the Prez that will be part of the recipe) and there is now an alternative conservative media unlike the 90’s. Also, he has now learned and lived the lessons of the 90s.

Those safeguards would be very helpful in allowing me to sleep at night should Newt win the office.

[Dubya-M-DeesWent2SyriaStupid!]

I also think Paul and or Trump will split the vote.In the end I pray this does not happen and everybody all comes together around one candidate. I am not saying I would not vote for Gingrich I am just not sure how this will all play out yet.A lot could happen.

[Hoodat]

Patton and MacArthur didn't resign. They kept their rank. And at the end, they were leading the way.

lol

[C. Edmund Wright]

>> DC is dangerous and one big crony game on both sides of the aisle.(Look at the phoney bill they tried to pass to cease insider trading within DC) Newt is an insider I have decided.I don’t know if any political candidate can stop this train wreck but I see Bachmann and Perry as a slightly better chance.Possibly even Santorum. >>

You make some valid points, and all I can do is share with you why I would support Newt over the others now: It’s his ability plus his experience in the 90s plus his plans for the nation should he win.

I simply don’t see much big time ability in Bachmann or Santorum. I see them as passionate and committed, but not very effective at communicating what they are passionate about. I remember Bachmann being made fun of by Chris Matthews, and while Bachmann was right and Matthews was wrong, she did not - and could not - take command of the situation and she did come off as dense even though I know she is not.

Newt can just do that much better than anyone else on our team.

Perry’s been a big time player because Texas Guv is a big time post, but I just don’t see the nation electing another nice guy from Texas who can’t really explain to you why we are right and the other side is wrong. But I do like Perry and he’s my second pick right now.

If we could morph Perry and Newt, we’d have a monster! But alas, we are left with reality.

[C. Edmund Wright]

>> Patton and MacArthur didn’t resign. They kept their rank. >>

I love it when someone thinks they have hit a homerun and it ends up being a fizzle: like this argument:

Actually, both were considered failures and both “fired” along the way and both never achieved the ultimate rank they should have as a result. However, both did recover from being “fired” and both went on to be big time leaders in the end and both ended up being exonerated for the most part by history. Frankly, both were fired because folks above them were intimidated by both men’s abilities and both men’s bluntness.

Which, when you think about, is exactly like Newt. You, um, made our argument for us.

[nathanbedford]

The 83 ethics charges came down to misinforming the committee respecting the source of funds for his college course, whether they came from GOPAC. Evidently, Gingrich first told the committee that they were GOPAC funds and then subsequently signed a letter prepared by his attorney which stated the contrary. [Gingrich, of course, has stated apart from this proceeding that the misstatement was inadvertent and that he did not realize that his lawyer had changed the facts] This is the gravemen of the sole remaining charge against Gingrich, apart from the allegations of of tax violations about which he was subsequently exonerated by the IRS. Here are some relevant paragraphs from the Washington Post which certainly could never be accused of supporting Gingrich:

"The special counsel also provided further evidence of how Gingrich misled the committee. Earlier the ethics subcommittee pointed to a contradiction in the information Gingrich gave investigators. In October 1994 he said GOPAC was involved in setting up a college course that was financed with tax-deductible money. In December 1994, he said GOPAC was not involved.

Last September the committee announced it was expanding its investigation to examine whether Gingrich had misled investigators. On Oct. 1, the committee asked Gingrich for further information about the discrepancy, and on Oct. 31 Gingrich responded.

"One would have thought that, when we pointed out the letters, he would have read them," Cole said. "And if something was wrong, you thought he would bring it to our attention. But he did not. . . . Instead he sends us a letter repeating what he said before. He doesn't see anything wrong. Well, that makes it tough for us to understand that in fact this is as innocent as some people would have us believe."

Cole also described in considerable detail the negotiations with Gingrich's attorneys that led to the speaker's statement agreeing to the findings.

In addition to combining three counts into one, the committee altered an original charge dealing with the false information given to the panel to include language pointing out the role of one of Gingrich's attorneys in preparing the material. In addition, the word "knew" was dropped, making the charge read that Gingrich had submitted information that he "should have known" was false, blurring the question of whether he acted intentionally."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/govt/leadership/stories/011897.htm

And this is a serious ethical matter or a political matter?

[Hoodat]

Newt Gingrich is no George Patton. And his leadership abilities leave much to be desired. Just ask Dede Scozzafava.