GOP sources: Newt moves to become the Republicans' savior in ‘08

Insight n the News ^ | 10/17/2006

[GraceCoolidge]

I was attempting to draft a post along those lines and couldn't get my thoughts into the right words. I read on... and found you had said it perfectly!

[wagglebee]

Marcus Alonzo Hanna was an Ohio senator and chairman of the Republican National Committee (or whatever it was then called) in the 1890s. He was easily the most powerful Republican in the country and it is doubtful that anyone would have stood in his way if he had sought the nomination for the presidency. However, he also recognized that he was a somewhat polarizing figure to non-Republicans (as is Newt), so he orchestrated William McKinley's successful campaign and remained McKinley's closest advisor during his presidency.

[rob777]

"I think Rove is may actually be more ideologically grounded then Newt, I just think their most gifted talents or the ones they have displayed the brightest are in different areas."



Rove strikes me as someone who is willing to jettison a commitment to limited government if it means growing the GOP's appeal. Of course, that may be more Bush than Rove, but I see it as a little of both. Newt attempts to find a way to communicate Republican ideals to a broader range of people without as much compromise.







"Rove with obvious talents in organizing resources behind elections appears more pragmatic, because figuring out which areas to concentrate on and which to exclude is by nature pragmatic."


I believe that his talent lies more in this area BECAUSE he is more pragmatic than ideological in orientation.




"Newt with obvious talents in formulating policy in concise popular terms appears more ideologically grounded because formulating policy is by nature ideological."



As with Rove, Newt's talents suit his temperament. In short, Newt excels in an area that "is by nature ideological", BECAUSE he tends to be ideologically inclined.

[SamuraiScot]

I don't think a divorcé is someone the GOP ought to run,

Yeah, look at what happened the last time we ran a candidate who had been divorced.

An interesting question. Reagan's was a Hollywood divorce a good 30 years earlier, and no one feels sorry for anyone from Hollywood. People see the stars as indestructable idols, and don't think seriously about either party as a victim.

Today, moral issues and moral consequences are legitimately front-and-center in a way they definitely were not in 1980. And from a merely tactical point of view, a Republican needs to be purer than Caesar's wife, because he needs to survive the attacks of (pro-divorce) media types, who will attack him for being divorced.

Someone like Santorum, rather than Newt, will have more selling power.

[FreedomProtector]

"Rove strikes me as someone who is willing to jettison a commitment to limited government if it means growing the GOP's appeal. Of course, that may be more Bush than Rove, but I see it as a little of both. Newt attempts to find a way to communicate Republican ideals to a broader range of people without as much compromise."

Those are valid insightful points, and I don't disagree. I still believe that Rove is ideologically grounded (hard to compare what level with other people), however his job objective/title of winning elections masks or covers his ideology/philosophy.


Politics actually needs both and I believe the struggle between pragmatism and ideology is often the root of many (interparty) debates. There are some things which one should never obviously never compromise on. If one was never pragmatic about where to put resources and careful about which battles to fight, one's philosophy or part of one's philosophy would never be implemented. I believe that when compromising one's ideology as an attempt to get part of it implemented that one should explain their ideology/philosophy and reasons why it is better. This is an area were Republicans have much room for improvement.

[FreedomProtector]

Ronald Reagan was good at all three:

1) Clearly ideologically/philosophically grounded in convervative thought.
2) Was pragmatic [without compromising uncompromisable principles]...[he had to be given congress at the time]...would "rather have a bill that has 75% of what I want then none at all"
3) Explained and articulated conservative ideology/philosophy and reasons why it is clearly better then the alternative, often times humorously.

[CBart95]

"... the way most people think about what it takes to make a good candidate..." is probably the heart of the delimna.

With our empiricle evidence and history and our trackrecord it's more than amazing that we have gotten along as we have.

Marry that with our insane compulsion to ignore current affairs or alternatively tend to every micro-move an office holder makes, it's remarkable that any sane person even bothers with public life.

One quick look at our "circus" of public servants would chill any normal person. Side show freaks make better associates...when you rattle off just a sampler of who we got up there "taking care of business" Waters,Pelosi, Frank , Conyers, Kerry, Rangel and on and on.

Saints Preserve us!

Where are the Thomas Sowells? The sane ones? We gotta stop this "Gong Show" process that produces circus freaks.

[WhiteGuy]

Where are the Thomas Sowells? The sane ones? We gotta stop this "Gong Show" process that produces circus freaks.

[streetpreacher]

Thoughts anyone now that the midterms are over and "compassionate conservatism" has effectively dismantled the House that Newt built?

[streetpreacher]

BTTT