newt takes on the establishment again

From the New Yorker:

Newt Gingrich is one of those who fear that Republicans have been branded with the label of incompetence. He says that the Bush Administration has become a Republican version of the Jimmy Carter Presidency, when nothing seemed to go right. “It’s just gotten steadily worse,” he said. “There was some point during the Iranian hostage crisis, the gasoline rationing, the malaise speech, the sweater, the rabbit”—Gingrich was referring to Carter’s suggestion that Americans wear sweaters rather than turn up their thermostats, and to the “attack” on Carter by what cartoonists quickly portrayed as a “killer rabbit” during a fishing trip—“that there was a morning where the average American went, ‘You know, this really worries me.’ ” He added, “You hire Presidents, at a minimum, to run the country well enough that you don’t have to think about it, and, at a maximum, to draw the country together to meet great challenges you can’t avoid thinking about.” Gingrich continued, “When you have the collapse of the Republican Party, you have an immediate turn toward the Democrats, not because the Democrats are offering anything better, but on a ‘not them’ basis. And if you end up in a 2008 campaign between ‘them’ and ‘not them,’ ‘not them’ is going to win.”

I think Newt’s right about this. Republicans have been tagged with that label, and it’s going to be hard to recover from that perception. Congressional Republicans did not handle their responsibilities well when they had the majority, and voters recognized that last November when they handed over power to the “not them” Democrats. President Bush should share some of the blame for what happened in the November mid-term elections as well.  The President of the United States is supposed to be the head of our party, but instead he has abdicated that role to conservative talk radio and blogs.  It’s up to the grassroots activists to fight for a re-direction in Congressional priorities and the needed reforms to solve the problems we face as a nation, since no one in Washington D.C. has the desire to do that.

The question becomes whether Newt is the “not them” candidate for the Republicans in 2008. He certainly hasn’t been shy about criticizing Congress and the Bush administration. He has some fascinating ideas, and I would love to see a debate between Newt and Hillary, if only for the sheer entertainment value of such a confrontation. Maybe he’s been out of Congress long enough to be considered an outsider, but it will be hard for him to shake his controversial history while Speaker of the House.  I’m having a hard time believing that Newt Gingrich is electable, but it’s probably a mistake to underestimate his chances, especially this early in the presidential race.

Tags: ,

6 thoughts on “newt takes on the establishment again

  1. We were talking about this the other day. A presidential aspirant must find some way to differentiate himself from the guy of similar political persuasion, who’s currently in power. Like what Sarkozy just did to Chirac in France.

    You know that I love and admire Newt. He’s a brilliant thinker. But he’s wrong here, as he is about global warming.

    George W. Bush is the Republican version of Jimmy Carter is so absurd I can’t believe a person of Gingrich’s intellect would entertain such an idea, much less publicly utter such nonsense.

    The Bush economy is strong, Carter’s was terrible. The Bush foreign policy is aggressive, Carter’s was hapless. Bush is a two termer, Carter was laughed out of office after one. There simply is no comparison between the two men.

    Gingrich’s comment only feeds into the wild misconceptions about Bush. The country has been dumbed down enough already by an agenda driven press corps and a wildly irresponsible opposition party. I would expect one of America’s best and brightest to be contributing to the propaganda.

    It seems to me that Newt is talking out of his ass these days to win over some new friends and to silence some old enemies.

  2. Above, I meant to say that I wouldn’t expect one of America’s best and brightest to be contributing to the propaganda that George W. Bush has been a bad President.

  3. Maybe I wasn’t clear enough about what I thought that Newt was right about in the whole context of what he said. Where I agreed with Newt is that the perception of Republican incompetence is out there. People are buying into that argument whether it’s true or it isn’t true.  I’ve already agreed that the comparison between Carter and Bush is unfair. Bush is doing far better than Carter did for those reasons you gave and for many others. You have probably seen the IBD series on exactly how incompetent Carter was. I fully intend to read it at some point. 😉

  4. You have GOT to be kidding? Adultery, ethiics violations and censure by his fellow congressmen- If you think Newt is a shining example of a presidential candidate, you need to look further back than Carter: these days I feel like it is 1974 and Nixon all over again! The last time we had a guy try to become “king”, we drummed him out of office. I expect one day soon to turn on the news and see Bush getting into a helicopter wiht his arms up in peace sings, saying “You won’t have Georgee Bush to kick around anymore”… I actually DO hope Newt makes the cut because that is one of the TWO ways Hillary will be elected. The other would be Condie!

  5. Mark,

    I never said that Newt was a “shining example” of anything. I don’t believe he’s electable. I have said that numerous times. Just because I would like to see Newt and Hillary debate, you assume that I want him to be the nominee. I don’t. I’m not convinced that he can beat Hillary, even though I doubt that Hillary really wants to rip Newt on the infidelity charge. If George W. Bush was trying to be a “king” as you say, he has done a rather poor job of it.  One thing we can both agree on is that we are ready for the Bush presidency, such as it is, to be officially over.  Unlike you, however, I want a new Republican in charge instead of Hillary. 🙂

  6. It is hard to imagine a person engaged in the political debate in 2007 who can’t manage to spell ‘Condi’ correctly. Nice job, Walker!

    Nobody thinks Newt is a shining example of ethics. But, let’s be clear, Gingrich violated no ethics with his book deal. And if you think I’m kidding take the Hillary Clinton book deal example as evidence. She did the same thing that Gingrich did, except she didn’t give the advance back and she didn’t apologize.

    Another beautiful double standard for the Left to ignore.

    Mark, thanks for proving my point for me that Liberals are stupid.

Comments are closed.