Month: March 2007

Posted on '08 Election, Conservatives, Republicans

newt gingrich: damaged goods?

newt gingrich cannot win the republican nomination for president. even though his supporters might wish that it were possible, it’s not. my concerns about newt are not related to his personal life. they are based on what i have seen while he was in congress –his leadership style and his inability to complete the reform job he started in 1994. i just don’t see him as a guy who would be able to run this country. no matter what newt gingrich says now about bipartisanship and working together to solve the nation’s problems, there are more than a few skeptics who question his new-found commitment to that ideal. that skepticism is well deserved. we didn’t see that very often in the gingrich congress, which always seemed to be at odds with the clinton administration and congressional democrats.

the main problem for newt is that most of the country is already biased against him. i don’t usually put much stock in polls, but if you look at his favorable / unfavorable ratings, the deficit there is around 20 points. whether that rating is fair or unfair, it is undeniably true that he has very high negatives with the average american. not many people can claim that they are unfamiliar with the virtues and the flaws of the former leader of the republican revolution. we know him well, although that knowledge is based on what he did in congress and not so much on his personal life. those who pay attention to politics on a regular basis know enough about newt gingrich to make the judgment on whether he has the ability to be president, and even though we like newt, we should realize that he lacks that ability.

anyone can be re-invented, except newt gingrich. we know what he is, and what he was. if adultery was a disqualifier for the presidency, then our candidate pool would be much smaller in each election year. this isn’t what makes newt gingrich the wrong man for the presidency. gingrich made his mea culpas to dobson and falwell, and whether he was sincere enough to change this pattern of behavior, that’s not for me to decide. you can argue that the details of newt’s past affairs are troubling, and that he has made some glaring mistakes in his personal life. those past mistakes were also well known to the press corps at the time of the lewinsky affair. because of this, gingrich was initially cautious about moving forward with impeachment based solely on clinton’s monica indiscretion. if you still want to accuse newt of hypocrisy because clinton ended up being impeached anyway, i guess you could.

in spite of all newt’s flaws, conservatives still like what he brings to the table as a potential presidential candidate. he’s got a stronger claim to conservatism than any other front-runner except for mccain. we also like big ideas and big-picture thinking. that’s another one of the strengths he has. he also has the appeal of not being giuliani, romney, or mccain… and don’t underrate that quality. even though he hasn’t “officially” entered the presidential race, he still could raise the money necessary in time to get himself into the top three and become a serious contender. i just don’t see it happening.

that said, newt is kidding himself if he thinks that he can blunt the criticism or short-circuit the full examination of past sins by entering the race late in the game. as dean barnett points out, thanks to the speed of information these days, it won’t take long for his entire record to be bludgeoned to death. in fact, it’s already happening at altercation, where a very thorough discussion of all those affairs in newt’s past is taking place right now. his record is not going to hold up under the media scrutiny. he’s a rock star now, but all that changes once he officially announces his candidacy.

tags: ,

2 Comments Posted on '08 Election, Democrats, Liberals

john edwards: victim?

poor john edwards. everybody is picking on the aggressively photogenic presidential candidate. first ann coulter. now roger ailes. his strategy is rather curious, considering that his base would applaud any condemnation from two of the left’s main enemies. doesn’t he understand that whining isn’t a very attractive quality in a potential nominee? i can understand why he might want to take a swing at ann coulter. many on the right sometimes feel the same way about her. on the other hand, he’s allowing fundraising letters to be sent out that accuse the right of having this orchestrated plan to destroy him. that’s a crazy charge, and that kind of accusation didn’t work for hillary either. (remember the “vast right wing conspiracy” line?) ann coulter doesn’t speak for the bush administration or for vice president cheney. there’s no conspiracy here. why would the right need to destroy john edwards? he can self-destruct without our help.

i don’t understand why john edwards still thinks he needs to win the lefties over. he’s got them already. he gave them what they wanted when he decided not to fire his controversial bloggers. he admitted that he made a mistake on the war. he is even calling for cutting off the funding for the war. (that’s easy for him to propose…he doesn’t have to vote on it.) he said no to the proposed nevada presidential debate because fox news was airing it. is it possible that there’s not much else he can do to keep the lefties happy?

maybe this is all part of the grand plan. i don’t see it working. if he considers these personal attacks to be extremely rough treatment, he doesn’t want to know what will happen after hillary gets done with him. if i’m a average democrat who is seriously looking at edwards as a potential nominee, i would want him to take the high ground more often and stop whining about every single criticism he receives. what i have seen so far from edwards doesn’t show me that he’s a leader. it shows me that he’s a follower, and that he might just follow the netroots right over the cliff.

tags: john edwards

Posted on '08 Election, Republicans

george will takes the field

are conservatives being too harsh in their judgment of mitt romney, rudy giuliani, and john mccain? george will seems to think that we are.

Suppose someone seeking the presidential nomination had, as a governor, signed the largest tax increase in his state’s history and the nation’s most permissive abortion law. And by signing a law institutionalizing no-fault divorce, he had unwittingly but substantially advanced an idea central to the campaign for same-sex marriages — the minimalist understanding of marriage as merely a contract between consenting adults to be entered into or dissolved as it suits their happiness.

Question: Is it not likely that such a presidential aspirant would be derided by some of today’s fastidious conservatives? A sobering thought, that, because the attributes just described were those of Ronald Reagan.

tags: , ,

Posted on Random Musings

random thoughts and good stuff to read

many interesting topics to discuss here. there’s the ann coulter – john edwards feud.  scooter libby might have to serve some jail time. the inexcusable state of affairs with government-run military hospitals like walter reed is something we need to look into.

ann coulter is who she is, but she’s getting to sheehan-land with her outrageous statements. she can say whatever she wants. no one is silencing her. of course there is a little room for interpretation in the entire context of her statements about john edwards, but at some point, we on the right have to decide that we won’t financially support flame-throwing. that’s not what we are about as conservatives, and it hurts our credibility. john edwards will be fine. i’m not worried that ann coulter can permanently damage his candidacy with anything she says about him.  he might even get some more campaign donations out of the whole dust-up.

the scooter libby trial was an attempt to find out whether the bush administration lied to get the country into war with iraq. they may have convicted libby on obstruction charges, but fitzgerald failed to prove the left’s main argument in getting his conviction. this trial wasn’t even about scooter libby. for the left, it was about trying to implicate rove, president bush, and vice president cheney in a massive deception of the american people in the run-up to the war in iraq. this attempt failed. i’m not saying that libby did nothing wrong, but he wasn’t convicted for outing valerie plame, which was supposed to be the unforgivable sin that prompted this case. why are we talking about libby’s credibility and totally ignoring the fact that joe wilson also lied about his finding in niger? hmm.

i agree with the left on very few occasions. this i think that we should all agree on: we must take better care of our military men and women who are injured in the field of battle. if we are going to ask them to lay their lives on the line for this country, they deserve to have the best care we can provide. this kind of care cannot be found in government-run hospitals such as walter reed. it is not a failure of medical personnel. it is a failure of bureaucracy. we should have kept a closer eye on this, and we need to make some changes so that this kind of neglect doesn’t happen in the future.

links:

patrick ruffini opines on what to look for in our ’08 candidates.

according to real clear politics, rudy giuliani didn’t support the 1996 welfare reform bill, even though he did implement massive reforms in new york city.

some non-binding satire from frank j at imao.

Posted on '08 Election, Republicans

mitt at CPAC

If we are to keep America strong, we must turn to the source of America’s strength. Liberals think that government is the source of our greatness. They’re wrong. The American people are the source of our strength: hard working, educated, skilled, family-oriented, willing to sacrifice for their family and their country, God-fearing, freedom-loving American people. They always have been the source of our strength and they always will be.

And so if we need to call on the strength of America, you don’t strengthen government, you strengthen the American people.

You strengthen the American people by letting them keep more of their own money, and not taxing their families at death.

You strengthen the American people by making sure that the voice of millions of voters trumps the voice of unelected judges.

You strengthen the American people by securing our borders and by insisting that the children who come legally to this land are taught in English.

And perhaps most importantly, you strengthen the American people when you strengthen the American family. Marriage must come before children because every child deserves a mother and a father.

This is not the time for us to shrink from conservative principles. It is time for us to stand in strength.

the rest of his speech was just as good. read it all at redstate.

reagan’s social conservatism was one of his strengths, but the reason why he is idolized so much by the right is his optimism and his ability to inspire and lead the country. of course conservatives want someone who agrees with us on social issues, gun rights, securing the borders, and winning the war against the jihadists. we can find a few of those. what we don’t have is inspiration and a vision going forward. that should be something our nominee should bring to the table. i think romney has this ability, judging from this speech. i’m not at all sure how he’s going to gain enough momentum to pass giuliani in the polls, no matter how many great speeches he gives from now on…but I hope he will.

tags: , ,

1 Comment Posted on '08 Election, Conservatives, Republicans

waiting for newt

i’m just wondering when the soft support for guiliani and mccain turns into something solid. let’s be perfectly clear about this. if a candidate polls in the high 20’s and low 30’s, that doesn’t demonstrate much confidence in the choice, does it? could it be that conservatives could be waiting for someone else…like for example…mr. gingrich? he’s getting 11-15% in the polls right now, and there is definitely interest out there in a gingrich candidacy. is he running? possibly. does he have a shot? if romney is still being taken seriously, then gingrich should be also. (i’m not ripping mitt…i think he’s got potential. but he’s got a limited window of opportunity here if these poll numbers don’t significantly improve.)

meanwhile the newt media blitz continues as scheduled. whatever you may think of the man personally, he’s a idea man. he’s got some great ideas and also some valid criticisms of the way things work in this country. what conservatives admire most about newt is that he’s our version of “truth to power”. he’s not afraid of questioning the way things have always been done in this country, including being honest in his evaluation of republican failures to live up to conservative values.

gingrich believes that there are many changes that we can and should make. he believes that many of the answers we seek in government can be found in the private sector. he’s right about that. the correct answer to the why question (why are we doing this) should never be “because that’s the way it’s always done”.

it’s not compassionate to stick seniors with an investment plan that doesn’t give them the best value, which is what social security does. it’s not the best use of resources to stick the government with another costly entitlement program like government-funded health care. it’s also unwise to pick presidential nominees by sound-bites, tv commercials, and completely scripted debates. that’s why newt’s cooper union lincoln-douglas style debates should be a format embraced by republicans and democrats who want to select the best nominee for their respective parties.

these lincoln-douglas debates are an outstanding idea for all the candidates to participate in. if we really want to get to the depth of all these issues we talk about in a surface fashion, why not make the presidential contenders show us how well they understand the issues we face as a country? i love the concept.

like i said, i don’t believe newt can win, but i like the fact he’s challenging republicans and democrats to go deep in the idea debate. that’s why i totally support whatever involvement he chooses to have in the next election.

Technorati Tags: , ,