I read an interesting column by Dick Morris in The Hill (which is a non-partisan, weekly publication dealing with Congress and national politics), in which he indicated that conservative Republicans were starting to coalesce around Newt Gingrich as their choice for the GOP Presidential nod.
If that happens, 2008 could look a lot like 1964 for the GOP. The parallels are kind of scary. That was the year when a popular New York politician was the front-runner but he was derailed by more conservative interests in the party. The New York politician was Nelson Rockefeller. He was ultimately deemed, "too liberal" for the GOP. He was particularly criticized for his divorce and remarriage.
The conservatives won out and nominated Barry Goldwater. As you know, Goldwater had his hat handed to him by Lyndon Johnson and the GOP numbers in Congress plunged. Could history repeat itself with Rudy as Rocky and Newt as Goldwater?
I thought about that history as I read Mr.Morris' column on the Gingrich "boomlet".
I think Newt is a great, smart and well qualified man, who would probably be a great President, in the Ronald Reagan mold. He also has absolutely no chance of being elected President. The Gingrich "brand" has been far too damaged in the minds of Americans by the relentless battering of the msm. If the Republican party nominates him, the electoral debacle in 2008 may be unprecedented.
In that scenario, Newt will go down in history as the guy who brought the GOP back to power (1994) and then led them to the fate of the Whigs (2008).
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
I agree, I think that there is a place for a more moderate Republican, and that Rudy has a much better chance that Newt. I think that the difference between now and when Goldwater ran is that people views vary more, or maybe it is there are more people caught in between the two parties. I am a republican yet I do have a few views that fall to the more liberal side.
Does Newt Gingrich really believe he can win the White House? I always thought he was a smart guy, too smart to believe that he could return to the political scene in a run for president. Even he must think he'd need to hold some other public position to rehabilitate his reputation. CNN, ABC, CBS, Bill Mahar and Jon Stewart would be delighted by a Gingrich nomination. I think Republicans are smarter than that...at least I hope we are.
Anonymous:
You are so right about how media lefties would play the Gingrich card. It would be a debacle.
As far as Newt rehabilitating his reputation...I doubt he could rehab if he found a cure for cancer. The media has trashed him for so long, they'd trash him in the future no matter what.
Repoman:
You may want to reconsider calling Gingrich a great man. Regardless of policy, all great men have at thier core- a solid moral center that guides their everyday behaviors and gives them the ability to make judgements that stand the test of time. Abraham Lincoln, John Adams, Geore Washington, Ronald Reagan, Harry Truman, Averill Harriman, Thomas Dewey, Barbara Jordon, Robert Kennedy - these are examples of great people. They possessed a moral compass- having nothing to do with belief or religiosity. Therie example make us ever more aware of the lack of greatness of such men as Bill Clinton, George Bush and Newt Gingrich.
Words matter. Gingrich was an cunning and opportunistic politician. That was good for him - he now has a fat pension on the backs of hard working people. He is NOT a great man.
Anonymous:
I will agree that we use certain words too much. A word like "great" is applied to so many people for so many reasons, that it loses its meaning.
In the context you mean, there are few "great" people. In fact, from your list, I'd only give you Lincoln and Washington. The rest had great moments, at best, and each of them had serious character flaws that critics complained of.
My use of the word in connection with Gingrich relates to him as a politician. I believe he has a body of ideas and conservative principles that could make him a transformational President like both Roosevelts and Ronald Reagan.
I don't know why you consider him opportunistic nor why you begrudge him his pension. (I happen to think that no one in Congress should get a pension, but why single out Newt on that point?) Newt was actually quite consistent with his operational leadership in Congress. He tried to pass the entire Contract With America, but he could not overcome the Dems and RINOs in Washington.
I don't think Newt is a "great" man, but I do think he could have been a great President.
Post a Comment