Posted on 06/15/2006 8:45:25 AM PDT by YaYa123
WASHINGTON -- The Hon. Newt Gingrich's recent oracular rumble to a luncheon audience at the Brookings Institution, during which he threatened to seek the Republican presidential nomination if a "vacuum" remains in the Republican field, reminded me of an inescapable insight I suffered sometime in 1998. Gingrich is the Republicans' Bill Clinton. Being a Republican, Gingrich is not as vacuous as the Arkansas huckster, nor as amusing. In fact, he can be boring.
Springing from the same late 1960s Jugendkultur as the Boy President, Gingrich is the career pol, the hustling, self-promoting narcissist, the sempiternal fantasist. When he was Speaker of the House I should have called him the Boy Speaker. He made his exit from politics like a troubled adolescent: whining, blustering, and guilty as charged.
(Excerpt) Read more at spectator.org ...
I read one of his earlier books. He's just like all the rest of those Republican CFR members. He talks the talk, but when it comes down to it, globalism is his god and the new world order is his religion. If he were to get the nomination, there would be no serious detour from the road towards a transnational federal state.
I don't disagree with any of the praise you heaped on Newt for his many important accomplishments. That's why I supported him.
I have a friend very close to Newt who says that his run for President will be to "further the debate", and he does not expect to get the nomination.
I can see Newt penning such a book, because he seems to have an intellectual interest in virtually everything, but I wouldn't expect it to be a theological treatise. I expect it to be a historico/philosophical work.
The MSM would eat him up and spit him out. They hate him. And can you imagine having a First Lady named Calista?
It's OK with me to criticize Newt, but it's unfair to put down Tulane as a "mediocre state university".
>>>>I don't disagree with any of the praise you heaped on Newt for his many important accomplishments. That's why I supported him.
Its a free country and you can belittle Newt all you like. What purpose that serves isn't clear to me.
>>>>As much as I dislike John McCain, Newt is a fool for implying McCain is part of a vaccuum.
Some FReepers disagree with you.
"How dare you even think that you are qualified to sit in the oval office! Ronald Reagan's office! President? Hah! You miserable excuse for a two-bit political hack, you're not even qualified to shine Ronald Reagan's boots. If you do run, I'm afraid you're gonna be at least one vote short. It'll be a cold day in hell before a traitor like you ever receives my vote. And that's a campaign promise you can take to the bank."
Like I said, Maybe Newt's time has come and gone. However, when you look at who has represented conservatism better through the years, Newt Gingrich has stood head and shoulders above John McCain. That goes double for Rudy Giuliani, at least in my book.
Well, if he gets the Republican nomination, there are basically two choices come election day - Republican or Democrat.
Further proof to me, how correct Tyrrell is using "cunning" in an article about Newt. Newt just might be capable of such "cunning". I can well imagine he would con people into supporting him with their time and money, while having no intention of being a serious candidate.
More and more, Newt reminds me of Pat Buchanan. Chocked full of brilliant ideas, ill-equipped to implement them.
I mostly like Newt although this article made me think.
But there are some people who prove they are disqualified from being President by their very act of running for the office.
Newt can not be elected President of the United States. Ever, under any circumstances.
If he believes he can, his delusion disqualifies him.
I, too, love Allen, but the more I see of Romney, the more I Love him!! For some reason, Evangelicals won't vote for Mitt...I don't get it.
"Both had their moment in history, and both blew it."
Exactly.
Point well taken. Tyrrell would have been better to poke fun at West Georgia College where Newt taught for eight years, than Tulane.
Like I said earlier, I don't disagree with the praise you heaped on Newt for his many, important contributions. He was the right man at the right time to lose the hold democrats had on the direction of the country. Lordy, I do remember those glory days!!
Congratulations on your new book.
I agree with your post.
and again, I agree with your point. "juvenile rhetoric" not a part of any important debate. But....(big butt monkey coming up): But failing to criticize the failings and flaws, and shortcomings, and deficiencies of our leaders makes us no better than democrats who continued to support Clinton, who now support William Jefferson.
To your Re:#30.
As long as it advances conservatism, there is nothing wrong with Newt Gingrich being cunning. Ronald Reagan was a cunning politico too.
Newt being out of power doesn't mean he should sit silent while liberal Republicans like Giuliani and Scwarzenegger, and centrists like Bush and McCain try to convince Republicans their domestic policies/poltiics are right for America. The bottomline should be obvious to ALL conservatives. Newt is still advancing the conservative agenda and his efforts are much more favorable then those associated with the current inside the beltway status quo politics of WashDC.
Unlike Pat Buchanan, Newt Gingrich has been in the center of political power. Maybe its just a personal thing with you, but your remarks are way off base.
http://quote.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000039&refer=columnist_ferguson&sid=aLu0dkQEt5iw
That link is to another interesting article on Newt. It makes me consider how Newt, or another flame fanner on the immigration issue, might attract the support of one issue voters in need of a hero. (I am NOT a fan of Andrew Ferguson, but his subject this time merits my attention.)
I have a friend very close to Newt who says that his run for President will be to"further the debate"raise his personal profile, and he does not expect to get the nomination.
There. Fixed it for you.
He's just another huckster. This one wears an (R), but he's just another huckster.
The comparison to Clinton is apt - both made great strides in the electoral fortunes of their parties, both shaped the debate to their liking, and both are deplorable in the way they conduct their personal lives.
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.