Posted on 01/12/2005 5:45:02 AM PST by governsleastgovernsbest
Edited on 01/12/2005 7:09:10 AM PST by Lead Moderator. [history]
Quick: think back to the days that Newt Gingrich was fighting and winning a revolution in Congress, turfing out a Dem Speaker of the House and ultimately winning an astounding victory in 1994 that brought Republicans to the majority and himself to the speakership.
At the time, Newt was treated as a villian and a pariah by the MSM, capped by his depiction on the cover of one of the main news magazines as "The Gingrich Who Stole Christmas." He was reviled, despised and lampooned.
But there was Gingrich on the Today Show this morning, with a Katie Couric giggling over whether it was OK to call him "Newt" rather than "Mr. Speaker." It wasn't quite the fawning treatment reserved for a Hillary Clinton, but it was altogether friendly and respectful.
Why the big change? Why, moreover, was Newt given the invite to come on, tout his new book, and by extension tease his possible candidacy for President in 2008?
Well, of course Newt is out of power and not the same threat to the now-non-existent Dem majority in Congress. But beyond that, in the not-so-humble opinion of your intrepid FR reporter, I believe Newt has struck something of a deal with the devil. He will be welcome on MSM shows to advance his political ambitions . . . at the price of taking heavy shots at Pres. Bush over the biggest issue of the day - the war in Iraq.
So there was Newt, coyly disclaiming any particular interest in the presidency (despite his impending visits to Iowa and New Hampshire). Katie admitted that she was in a rush to get through Newt's recitation of the major ideas in his book "because she had other things to get to."
As for the book, the ideas do sound interesting. There are five main themes, which are: winning the war on terror; saving Social Security through privatization; getting back to a constitutional view of inalienable rights coming from God and dealing with judges who don't understand that; patriotic education and immigration; and winning the jobs war with India and China.
Said Newt: "Washington a hard city to discuss ideas. If you talk about ideas people assume it's linked to political ambition. My career is one of looking at ideas. We did it 10 years ago with Contract with America, and I want to do it again."
Asked whether he was a candidate or just wants to shape the debate, Newt responded "primarily I want to shape the debate. The minute anyone says they want to be candidate, you get involved in 30-second ads, negativity, consultants, etc. There are a lot of good people who could run and carry the issues other than me." He then ticked off the names of the obvious front runners.
"But who better than you to advocate your own ideas," asked Katie logically. Of course Newt revels in this kind of speculation, but he wouldn't bite on announcing his candidacy.
Then it was on to what Katie really had in mind all along, Newt singing for his supper, so to speak.
Couric: "You're critical of US actions in Iraq." She then popped the question that this interview was really all about: "Who do you hold responsible?"
Newt: "As Commander in Chief I'm sure the President would agree that he is ultimately responsible. But the important question is how to you solve the problem? We have underestimated difficulty of job. There is noo evidence we can beat insurgents. We don't have the intelligence or the necessary Iraqi forces."
If Newt offered any practical recommendations to solve the problems he described, they were lost in the wrapping up shuffle.
So, a nice little bargain: Newt got his face time to pump his political ambitions, and Katie got a leading Republican light on the record effectively saying the war in Iraq is unwinnable and it's all W's fault.
Look for this formula to repeat itself frequently over the next few years. I believe it represents a calculated strategy on Newt's part in answer to the question "what can I do to make myself acceptable to the MSM and get my face out there, since I'm no longer a major office holder."
A deal with the MSM devil.
This is a true sign of his character, that nothing has changed.
Betrayal seems to be a large part of his character.
uhh, 'cuz it's the only way to get elected?
Newt needs to wake up. Why did he leave his political position? It wasn't because HE wanted to. He was coerced out due his own ethical problem.
Newt, like Gary Hart (Dem) and many other ex-politicians, is 'damaged goods'.
Hey, Newt, buy a clue; write your next book about the Presidency. That's about as close as you will ever get to it.
HTF does Newt think that people could ever be duped into voting for a jerkwad who quit his post in Congress right after being re-elected, saddling the voters of Georgia with an appointed Dimocrat?
And for that matter, how does he ever imagine Americans electing a President named after a small amphibian reptile?
I understand your concern - but - it would seem that Newt gave the only acceptable answer to the question posed! Obviously the CinC is ultimately responsible for the conduct of the war. His statement that President Bush would likely concur is also sincere.
I'll withhold judgement for a while, but would appreciate any new info you find on Newt especially if he indeed DOES start taking swipes!
The good Ginrich did for republicans will not be forgotten and I will always be appreciative of the contract with America and the start of the republican majorities that we now enjoy in the house and senate.
But, Newt will alienate many republicans by going on the MSM and criticizing Bush and our Iraq policy, seemingly just to position himself for a run at the presidency. Many of the points that he is making make republican hearts proud. But, attackiing the Commander-in-Chief and our Iraq policies will soon make us forget any of those valid points that he may make. The war in Iraq and our policies trump any other issues.
Newt is not the only man that can present and fight efficiently for our republican issues. I'm sure there are others that can defend our Iraq and war-on-terror policies at the same time that they fight for our other domestic policies.
Bingo. As long as he's useful, they'll be glad to treat him respectuflly. If he ever became a threat to Miz Hillary, he'd return to villian status.
Fair enough, but Newt went on to say that we don't have the necessary resources in Iraq to win the war and he doesn't see how the insurgency will be defeated under present circumstances. That amounts to very severe criticism of W.
Newt's been working on his back in the red light district since about the middle of 1995 when "Vanity Fair," a Clinton associated rag, outed his "relationship" with Callista Bisek. From then through the 1996 election the DemonRats ran an increasingly libelous series of ads attacking Newt and the Republicans with nary a counter ad being run. At about the time of Newt's downfall the N. Y. Post ran a column by a former House staffer from the 1995-1996 period who recounted a conversation he'd had with one of his DemonRat colleagues. The DemonRat said they didn't really fear Newt because they had enough dirt on him to blackmail him effectively.
In the 1995-1996 period many of us wondered why the pubbies weren't running counter ads against the DemonRat slime. After all, the party, according to Haley Barbour, the chairman at the time, was financially "drinking from a fire hose." During that period I complained about this failure to a local conservative Republican congressman here in Tennessee. He said he didn't know the reason for the failure, but that it was equivalent to sending troops to take a bridge without giving them covering fire.
Now we know. Newt was blackmailed into not giving the covering fire. Not only that, he's still in bed with the MSM and sticking it to President Bush in the middle of a war and while Bush is doing more than any other President has ever done to try to fix the Social Security mess.
Newt's become contemptible, just the way Benedict Arnold did. He's just not wearing a red coat.
Thanks for the clarification of his comments.
But, just for info, do YOU beleive we have enough over there?
I don't. And that IS a criticism of Bush. However, to be fair, there isn't a whole lot more he CAN send over without severly curtailing other commitments.
I don't feel it's WRONG to criticise. I do beleive it is wrong to do so solely for political gain - especially when the assertions are not valid. If Newt's doing that, he deserves our contempt.
Where is the evidence Newt is wrong about our inability to beat the insurgents? We certainly haven't demonstrated that we can. It is painfully obvious that the insurgents are stronger than they were even 6 weeks ago. I am not smart enough to know what the new tactics should be, but i think it is obvious or current tactics have failed.
Fair question. I can't really say whether we have sufficient forces. I don't see why W wouldn't send more resources if his generals were telling him they needed them. That wouldn't be his style.
So I have no big problem with Newt raising the issue, and for that matter I applaud his attempt to raise real issues and ideas in his book.
Sure, Ms. Couric wasn't going to miss an oppotunity to get Newt to criticize the Administration but...THEY NEED CRITICIZING!
Hindsight being 20/20, the US should NEVER had allowed Saddam's army, especially the Republican Guard to melt back into civilian life.
In their zeal to appeal to favorable world opinion, we did not bomb and kill their troops during the long build-up phase of the invasion of Iraq.
Newt correctly states that this mistake is the reason for the somewhat successful insurgency and roadside bombs, etc., which are killing Iraqis...but escuse me for suggesting...more importantly, Amercian soldiers.
The reason Saddam and his MINORITY party status didn't have an insurgency problem is because he was a ruthless killer, and had a plastic shredder and 2 crazy sons (not necessarily in that order.
He killed his enemies by the tens of thousands..which is no different that any successful conqueror throughout recorded history.
Of course President Bush couldn't conduct mass executions...but Allawi sure as hell can. But President Bush should have leveled Tikrit and Fallajah, and salted the earth in those locations...to hell with their populations.
I'd rather have the MSM screaming we are killing innocents for a year than have them screaming everytime an American soldier gets blown up by suicide bombers, etc..
I agree. Newt wants to sell his book, that's all, and playing coy about running for the presidency stimulates interest in him and the book. He's a smart guy: he knows he's got WAY too much baggage to ever run for Prez.
In the beggining assumptions were made and have been proven wrong. Now we are were we are and the situation is quickly getting worse. Our forces are shamefully over stretched making the President's proclamation yesterday that women would not be used in combat a laughable lie. They have been and are being used in combat everyday of the week. I don't have the answers, but I'm ready for someone in power to at least admit there are great questions.
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.