What Gingrich lacks here is what he lacked when he was Speaker - the judgement necessary to actually run a government, as differentiated from his billiant leadership of the opposition when Clinton took office.
This has been my opinion of Newt for while, too. He was a good opposition leader, not a good speaker. He also gets negative points for having an affair with his staffer at the same time the Clinton/Lewinski scandal hit the fan. Yeah, I know, Newt didn't perjure himself like Mr. Bill did, but he played right into the Dem's "everybody does it" defense.
Border security is an issue - and all current GOP candidates have embraced strong border control. Of course, so has President Bush...so, you can't make a "clean break" there.
One of my main criticisms of Bush is the large influx of illegals that have gotten though on his watch. His embrance of improved border control is welcome, but overdue.
is Gingich saying that a "clean break" should include abandonment of tax cuts, spending control and entitlement reform?
I don't think the GOP candidates will abandon the tax cuts, while the Dems will certainly want to reverse them. As for spending, there is plenty of room for the GOP to carve out, mainly because Bush has allowed spending (including the pork known by the euphemism "earmarks") to greatly increase during his term. The GOP candidates don't need to make a "clean break", but only to move to Bush's right on a few issues.
Bigfoot,
That is my view, too - the successful GOPer for 2008 is one who will build on what we've already done, and hammer Democrats for what they have failed to do. Democrats are busily providing us all the election fodder we need to destroy them in 2008, all we need do now is come up with a compelling rationale to vote for us, and we'll turn this whole thing around.
On the other hand, if we pussyfoot around with helping Democrats attack the past 8 years, then we're going to get clobbered.
It's a damned shame, Mark, that Newt is jumping in lock-step with Edwards and the Donkaroaches. However, it's a damned shame that politics in America has come to this, at least where the GOP is concerned. The Donkaroaches have done a masterful job, I'm afraid, of dumbing-down the electorate by painting all the Republicans with a broad brush. We lost all those seats in '06 not because the Donks ran better candidated, but because the candidates weren't Republicans. We lost in '06 because Foley was a phony, and the GOP was painted with that broad brush as all being like Foley. Katrina? I'm not buying Newt's claims at all. Sure, the feds didn't perform up to levels they could have, but there also was a lack of local and state government action, and they were the first responders in this situation. Whatever.
Also, the drive-by media has a hand in this. Listen to any of the top-of-the-hour radio news, as I do daily, and you'll hear nothing but anti-Bush, anti-GOP bias.
We're up against it, Mark, and it's gonna be an uphill battle. The way things look, '08 ain't gonna be a good year. I'm only hoping that the undecided electorate takes a long, hard look at how the Donks treated General Petraeus this week, and see the Donkaroaches for the political-hack phonies they are.
But I ain't holdin' my breath...
Kiefer-
You better not hold your breath. You Pacaturds should get ready for a real thumping in the Whitehouse and Congress. Even the brilliant Newtster knows it. Is it Lazy Fred or Crazy Rudy?
The liberation of Iraq underwent a major tactical shift in January and that his producing remarkably good results in a relatively short time. So, the only way to make a "clean break" in that area is to join the Democrats in calling for snatching defeat out of the jaws of victory. - Mark
No it's not Mark. Bush has pandered to the left too often on this conflict. What Newt is suggesting is to tell the left to go f$#@ck themselves and start fighting this war without one hand tied behind our back.
Take some advice from me, Newt: attack the Democrats. They are ripe for it and you are good at it. - Mark
He does, very often and very directly, which Bush DOESN'T. Here's the best possible ticket:
Newt/Rudy
It's a damned shame, Mark, that Newt is jumping in lock-step with Edwards and the Donkaroaches. - Libs
That's not it at all. Newt will be MORE CONSERVATIVE than Bush, and frankly that wouldn't be hard to do. Newt won't put up with the hysterical, panty-screaming left which is long overdue, and will fight the battle more fiercely and more intelligently having a better historical reference.
It's time now to become more conservative, we have compromised enough.
Ouch!!!! That has really got to hurt.
One by one, the faithful are turning. It will be interesting to see if anyone will still be supporting the Decider in the end; with the exception of the dependable Bush advocates who post on this blog and, of course, Barney.
Ouch!!!! That has really got to hurt. - CO
I know it's hard for liberals to understand deviation of opinion within a party. As the moveon.org candidates, they don't dare stray for their positions or talking points.
Here's another tough one for you. I still support Bush 100%, only wish he was more conservative.
Wow, Rana.......
You're boasting that you've increased your minority position from 23% to 40%? If in fact that's a legitimate number
You do realize that means 60% still goes to the GOP?
lol... I'm not boasting, and I'm not a democrat...
What do you guys think about this trend? That's all I'm asking... Christ you're jumpy...
I hope the Republicans do not break from the "Decider Commander Guy."
As the worst president ever circles the drain, he can take the entire Republican party down with him.
Jumpy? I actually found it amusing one would ask for opinions on such a non-relevant issue.
Considering the divide in the country and the fact that military familys are being asked to sacrifice while listening to Democrats wanting to pull the plug on them, it's of little wonder. I am actually part of a military family and many of my relatives are fearful the left just might succeed. Also, many families have members in the NG and are fearful their soldiers may be sent to a war the Democrats (oh excuse me, the members of the Moveon.org party) have no intention of winning.
Pretty easy to understand, wouldn't ya think?
Good post, Rana,
It'll be interesting to watch this play out. I know I haven't donated to the Republican Party or any Republican candidate this year; my little form of protest against their sloppy governance. Maybe military and military families are like-minded.
I’m not sure how to read contributions to Obama and Paul; maybe they’re higher because everyone else is so damned low. Or maybe there is a protest of dollars going on. Either way it doesn’t pass the smell test.
I'll be waiting for the other Hsu to drop …
"I'll be waiting for the other Hsu to drop" … Dasein Libsbane
heh.
Upset by the public's unenthused support of his candidacy for president, I think Newt is just talking like a sore loser. Look at Pat Buchanan over at MSNBC. He's another one that feels like it was his god given right to one day lead the party that he helped build. Both pretty smart guys, and both come off like THEY KNOW IT, in a major way. That's not appealing. Sorry Newt, LIKABILITY is huge! Look at W. Look at Clinton (as much as I hate to admit it). They have it. Newt and Pat DON'T. That is why the base didn't pick them TO LOSE IN THE GENERAL ELECTION. And what we are seeing now with both of these guys is a little bit of PAYBACK. I bet they want the republicans to lose, so they can say SEE, TOLD YOU. YOU SHOULD'VE PICKED ME! ----In anycase, look for both of these complaining republicans to be ALL OVER MSNBC, CNN, AND THE REST OF THE MSM. They love it when we eat our own. And for being such a smart guy, Newt is acting like an idiot. GET OVER YOURSELF, NEWT! AND DO WHAT'S BEST FOR THE COUNTRY.
neocon,
Perhaps, but by saying what he said, all he's done is make "Breaking With Bush" the headline.
We need continuity with President Bush, no breaking with him. The Administration has been a success, and we build on success.
Mark,
That's how the MSM portrays it, however Newt should know better.
I have heard Newt speak quite a bit and he is usually complementary of many things Bush has done, but is quick to point out the differences and I will bet that when in full context, he said much of the same. But you won't hear that from the MSM.
Mark: Border security is an issue - and all current GOP candidates have embraced strong border control. Of course, so has President Bush...so, you can't make a "clean break" there. Hurricane Katrina was a bad thing - and all current GOP candidates are pledged to makethings better in the area of government response to disaster. Of course, so has President Bush....so, you can't make a "clean break" there. The liberation of Iraq underwent a major tactical shift in January and that his producing remarkably good results in a relatively short time. So, the only way to make a "clean break" in that area is to join the Democrats in calling for snatching defeat out of the jaws of victory.
Given all that, can one really wonder why the Dems are running against Bush? For goodness sakes, you laid it out very well, Mark! Except for Iraq the only way for any candidate to position himself away from Bush is -- as many have surmised here -- to run to the right of him. If you don't, you lose your base. If you do, you lose everyone else. You nailed it Mark: Come what may, we will run in 2008 in the political house that President Bush built.
Freedom1 observing Canada... Ouch! That's gotta hurt!
Exactly Freedom1 ... you'd think CO has enough on his hands with what is going on in his OWN country. Canada better take heed or they'll all be bowing down to Allah.
I have to agree with Newt on many of his points. And I like him. He knows what needs to be done on the GWOT. Newt/Rudy sounds like a great ticket, neocon.
In other news, Hillary's camp is mighty worried about Hsu. Tee hee hee.
I can't stand Gingrich - this is the same person who ran the impeachment hearings against Clinton while at the same time having an affair with an aide of his. Not only that, the Republicans in the house while he was speaker was ready to throw him out.
He's an embarrassment! Doesn't have a chance to win either!
This is somewhat tangentially related to the topic... Comments?
Yes--go post it in your own blog, the one noone visits, and we'll be over in a while to debate it. Otherwise, stick to the topic, before I get you suspended for being a dumb*$$...
It's Newt/Rudy for me Kimberly.
If Newt doesn't get in then it's either:
Fred/Rudy
or Rudy/?
wow... I must've hit a nerve with Keefer... So... I say something that you don't like and you cry to the moderator the get me banned? What is this, Kindergarten?
Ricorun,
I guess that over time I have become a Bush conservative...a lot of my fellow conservatives balk at that, but there are some views of mine which have diverged from my conservative brothers...especially those of a more libertarian bent.
President Bush is not, of course, Catholic - but in his religious attitude I see a kindred spirit. I, too, had a long period of immorality in my life - nothing which an outside observer would call horrible (of course, in Bush's case, some outsiders have come up with some rather lurid fantasies about President Bush's earlier, more sinful character), but soul destroying all the same. Also like President Bush, at 40 I was converted - or, more accurately for both of us, re-converted to our old faith.
I don't know President Bush, but what I know of him is quite like me - I, too, am not adverse to spending large sums of money...I just want it spent on something that has at least a chance of working; I'm free market not because of love of money, but because it is the only thing that works; I'm in favor of this war not because I like war, but because it has to be fought - and won; I'm soft on the illegals already in-country not because I don't care about the law, but because they are, in the end, my brothers and sisters.
For all the hatred directed at us, most of us Christians feel pretty much the same way - we're being maligned as bigots, war-mongers and generally hate-filled, but we're not like that at all. In President Bush, I've got the President I've always wanted.
Neocon,
Right now I'm well disposed towards all of the GOP candidates except for Paul - but if Newt were to run, the only way I'd vote for him is if he managed to get the nomination. Any GOPer is better than any Democrat in 2008 as far as the White House is concerned.
What I want, however, is a unity ticket - yet more of that "new tone" in DC and more reaching across the aisle...so, Romney/Lieberman...or Thompson/Lieberman...or Giuliani/Lieberman...main thing is to grab Lieberman and take away 10% of the normal Democrat vote on just that account. The idea, of course, is to craft a war-winning ticket so that all of those GOP, Democrat and Independent who correctly identify winning the war as paramount will have a ticket to vote for.
Mark,
The Lieberman side of the ticket may be smart move. However, haven't you learned about reaching out to the other side of the aisle?
I wouldn't give Biden, Kennedy, Schumer, Clinton, Pelosi etc, the time of day.
I would however begin to work with people like Bayh, Webb, Shuler, etc, however they have yet to get into any leadership roles, and until they do, I wouldn't trust the current crop AT ALL.
In President Bush, I've got the President I've always wanted.
Posted by: Mark Noonan at September 14, 2007 09:22 PM
Well then, Mark, you've got exactly what you deserve.
So... I say something that you don't like and you cry to the moderator the get me banned? What is this, Kindergarten?
Well, let's see--we have stevo, CO, libtardT, robert, and Broder. And we have you, trying to hijack a thread because if you post your crap on your own blog, you may get two comments on it--one of which would be your own.
So, yes, it is kindergarten.
btw, I have no influence over this blog, so your sorry arse is safe...
CO,
No, you've got more than you deserve...to think that the man who has been defending all you hold dear should be so despised by you! You'll eventually have to answer for that, you know?
neocon,
Indeed, there is a great deal of dishonor on the other side of the aisle...but there is that small sliver of honor, and I want it united with us.
Rana,
Are we mixing apples and oranges? I don't know because there are too many facts missing.
The anti-Bush hatred in the MoveOn-Democrat Party has caused an increase in their individual and total contributions. Wouldn't the same be true of those MoveOn-Democrats serving in the military?
The 23 percent figure was based on the full "2002 election cycle" which would include contributions to the official Party candidates selected during the primaries. On the other hand, the 40 percent figure is based on contributions "so far this year", where the final candidates have not been determined.
Could it be that "so far this year", most Republicans don't yet have a strong opinion or preference for any one candidate, are waiting to see how the "field" shakes out, and thus aren't sending large amounts of money to the "field of candidates" or the Party in general?
Additionally, there's the heated fight between Hillary and Obama with each candidate's impassioned supporters sending larger contributions to support "their" candidate. It's almost like an election prior to the election, with each candidate's fans contributing more than they might otherwise.
The article didn't say "individual" Republican contributions were down from what would be expected at this point in the election cycle. If individual Republican contributions were running at a "normal" rate, while individual MoveOn-Democrat contributions were up significantly, the total amount of MoveOn-Democrat contributions would be up, as would their percentage of the combined total.
AAR
God bless you President George W. Bush. I think you are the greatest president in american history and I will always consider myself a Bush republican. Thank you for your courage and leadership. You have kept us safe for over 6 years without another attack and you have taken the fight to the enemy. Don't everyone thank President Bush all at once.
Newt has been getting very worrisome. I once really admired the man, but his calls of late don't make sense for a strong conservative front.
I recall his "debate" with Kerry in April and what a let down it was as he seemed to agree more with Kerry than anything.
For Newt and all the rest, I personally think it is a big mistake to distance themselves from Bush as they are doing. He isn't perfect but he does have what America needs to face off and fight the threat of global terrorism that has been atatcking us for 3 decades.
"Could it be that "so far this year", most Republicans don't yet have a strong opinion or preference for any one candidate, are waiting to see how the "field" shakes out, and thus aren't sending large amounts of money to the "field of candidates" or the Party in general?"
I think you nailed it. As of right now I can live with any of the candidates down the list to Huckabee. They have their small differences, and as of right now I'm leaning nowhere. They all have very big positives, and there is no clear frontrunner. If there was I would have donated already. I think I'm going to wait until after the primaries.
What the people who are going at me are not seeing one crucial point... I haven't passed judgment on this yet... I was just wondering what the readership here thought. I wondered what they thought of it as a trend or even if it was a trend...
Just so you know... on a post debating whether or not the Republicans should distance themselves from Bush, a link to a study that shows an increase of military contributions to anti-Iraq War candidates is entirely relevant.
Saying that, you guys bring up some good points... I'm always skeptical of what happens in the Primary Season, particularly when it has been going on as ludicrously long as it has...
Rana: What the people who are going at me are not seeing one crucial point... I haven't passed judgment on this yet... I was just wondering what the readership here thought. I wondered what they thought of it as a trend or even if it was a trend...
One thing I'd point out is the size of the total contributions. Obama leads all others with $27K. If everyone gave the maximum allowed (I'm not saying that's the case, but it's possible), that could represent as few as 12 people. And even if everyone gave just 10 bucks that still only represents 2700 people. Given the size of the active military, guards, and reserves, that's a pretty small proportion. So I don't think it represents much of anything.
Rico, are you saying Obama's only gotten $27,000 dollars? I think your forgetting a few zeros.
jbiccum: Rico, are you saying Obama's only gotten $27,000 dollars? I think your forgetting a few zeros.
The issue is how much he has received from service members: "Obama, who has never served in the military, has brought in more contributions from uniformed service members—about $27,000—than any other presidential hopeful, Democrat or Republican."
Ubama never served in the military? Then he can't be an authority on military issues--Sean Hannity didn't say so...
a link to a study that shows an increase of military contributions to anti-Iraq War candidates is entirely relevant.
Was this "study" done by the same group that says polls show us:
1. 80% of Iraqis want us out?
2. 69% of Americans are anti-war?
3. 4 out of 5 dentists surveyed recommend Trident gum?
4. Men are from Mars; women are from Venus?
Who does all these studies? I need to know!!!
![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.blogsforbush.com/nav-commenters.gif)
