The man who brought Conservatism to life in a big way and architected the sweep of Congress in 1994 by Conservatives is back! Yes, he's been with us for years now writing and speaking and making appearances but now it appears he's ready to lead Conservatives back to their roots with the American people.
He may or may not run for President in '08 but he's putting together a plan reminiscent of "Contract with America" that may very well make the difference between a dwindling minority status in Congress or winning back a few seats in the House and Senate. The political ideology of Conservatism (as originally conceived) is a winning ideology when put into practice. With the current mealy-mouthed, wishy-washy, new Conservatism as practiced by Republicans on the Hill these past six years, it's time we return to the bedrock of true Conservatism if we are to make up any ground in '08.
By the way, I'm headed to DC this afternoon for a long weekend. I will try to write a bit while on vacation but adventure awaits and I can make no guarantees. Have a lovely weekend everyone!
He may or may not run for President in '08 but he's putting together a plan reminiscent of "Contract with America" that may very well make the difference between a dwindling minority status in Congress or winning back a few seats in the House and Senate. The political ideology of Conservatism (as originally conceived) is a winning ideology when put into practice. With the current mealy-mouthed, wishy-washy, new Conservatism as practiced by Republicans on the Hill these past six years, it's time we return to the bedrock of true Conservatism if we are to make up any ground in '08.
Our man Newt is back! ...and just in time!
By the way, I'm headed to DC this afternoon for a long weekend. I will try to write a bit while on vacation but adventure awaits and I can make no guarantees. Have a lovely weekend everyone!
Comments
AHHHH!!!!! Ok, so I have read your opinions and think you are very articulate and smart. BUT NEWT?!?!?!!? Oh Dawn, say it isn't so?!?!?!?! HAHA...
I can see, you and I will have some interesting conversations about Newt.
Have a great weekend in DC. But paaleeze open your eyes to Newt... haha (respectful chuckle)
Speaking engagments? Sure. Book deals? In a heart-beat. A position at a conservative think tank? No question.
But for President... ? Talk about an uphill battle! Sweeping reforms twelve years ago does not a President make, IMO.
Though I was dismayed to see him leave public life, I think Bob Dole set a good example to retire when he did. He adherred to the tradition. And lent credibility to the Republican candidates that followed him.
Contrast that with Kerry and Edwards, neither of whom gave up their senate paychecks to pursue head-office of another branch, even though both had the financial means to do so. Both remain millionaires, both continue to draw those paychecks. Risk little, gain little. Go big or go home. That's what Dole did, that's what Newt should be remembered for.
I'm holding out for Rudy in '08 of course ;) I think he's got exemplary executive experience.
("Exemplary executive experience"? Sorry, I have this maddenning habit of alliteration. Once, I earned myself a week of lawn duty when asked by a Marine superior, "Wadda ya doin' Delp?" I replied, "Bringing beer back to the barracks, baby!")
Don't feel scared enough to give up your liberty? Hang on, Newt has just started to scare you.
-------------
MANCHESTER – Former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich yesterday said the country will be forced to reexamine freedom of speech to meet the threat of terrorism.
Gingrich, speaking at a Manchester awards banquet, said a "different set of rules" may be needed to reduce terrorists' ability to use the Internet and free speech to recruit and get out their message.
"We need to get ahead of the curve before we actually lose a city, which I think could happen in the next decade," said Gingrich, a Republican who helped engineer the GOP's takeover of Congress in 1994.
Where did you read that?
It doesn't exactly square with this article from another reporter covering the same speech:
-------------
AP:
Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich said Monday that First Amendment rights need to be expanded and cited the elimination of McCain-Feingold campaign finance reforms as one solution.
Gingrich, a Republican, suggested allowing people to give any amount to any candidate as long as the donation is reported online within 24 hours.
"Just as tax lawyers always succeed in out-thinking the (Internal Revenue Service) because they stay after five and the IRS goes home, the private-sector lawyers will always out-think the (Federal Election Commission) because they stay after five and the FEC goes home," Gingrich told about 400 people at the Nackey Scripps Loeb First Amendment Awards Honors dinner
[...]
Gingrich also spoke about the need to create different laws for fighting terrorism.
Noting the thwarted London terrorist attacks this summer, Gingrich said there should be a Geneva Convention for such actions that makes those people subject to "a totally different set of rules."
---------------
By "those people" I'm pretty sure he doesn't mean his political opponents. In fact, the story leads off about how he wants more political free speech!
Sounds to me like it was the author of the article you read that was trying to scare you! He's conflating Newt's call for "different laws for fighting terrorism" with his call to "expand First Amendment rights."
From your article:
"MANCHESTER – Former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich yesterday said the country will be forced to reexamine freedom of speech to meet the threat of terrorism."
This is not-so-subtley disengenious, IMO. It makes it sound as if Newt wants to restrict free speech to fight terrorism, when that's not what he said according to my article.
This is why I don't trust reporters.
I found your article source.
"Gingrich raises alarm at event honoring those who stand up for freedom of speech"
Not a very charitable headline! And for the record, the reporter does mention campaign finances:
"Gingrich sharply criticized campaign finance laws he charged were reducing free speech and doing little to fight attack advertising."
My objections are confined to the headline and lead graf. Anti-Newt bias is on full display there.
Yep, there's bias in the press. I'll never argue about that. However, the headline doesn't change what Gingrich is saying here about reexamining free speech to keep us safe from enemies. I think that's a very slippery slope.
I agree with Gingrich that McCain-Feingold hasn't worked. But this idea that political donations are "free speech" is an idea that I've always questioned as it seems it's used to prevent any reform of the campaign finance laws.
McCain-Feingold is considered anti-speech (by many on the left as well as on the right) because it restricts third parties' abilities to run ads. You and I (unless we are the candidates running against the incumbent) are barred from running an anti-incumbent ad 30 days before a primary, 60 days before a general election.
We're muzzled. Break this law and face real jail time. Rather than combat incumbent corruption, McCain-Feingold is essentially an incumbent protection bill.
"... the headline doesn't change what Gingrich is saying here about reexamining free speech to keep us safe from enemies."
You're right, of course, reporters don't often write their own headlines. But his lead graf summerized Newt's speech as wanting to reexamine free speech. No direct quotes, in context, to back that up, and we agree that all journalists have bias. I remain unconvinced Newt want us all to give up a measure of freedom in exchange for a measure of safety.
It's an interesting question, though. I'll be looking for a transcript (or video) of the speech, which would clear this up instantly.
I'd like the source anonymous used to imply Newt wants to restrict free speech. I don't believe he said that. I could believe he might want to examine the impunity the press currently enjoys. Freedom of the press does not imply the press can reveal government secrets related to national security and get away with it. Personally, I think someone at the NYT ought to be in jail right now for violation of the espionage act!
Rudy is a pipe dream for social liberals. He can't get the nomination because he is pro choice and anti gun. The same goes for McCain.
As for Newt, I agree, Ron. We'd likely have our hands full with the smut and smears that the Dems would plaster him with over his personal life. Honestly, I'm sick and tired of that sort of trash. He's human and his personal life, provided he's not a pedophile or a crook of any other sort, is not public business. It detracts from the business of this country. It's gotten soooo old, hasn't it?!
Newt's a well-read, well-written, intellectual who needs to be front and center for the GOP right now. It's time to wipe the phony Conservatism off the map on the Right and get back to our roots. He could very well do that for the Republican party provided others in the "big tent" will let him...
I'm not so sure I'm too keen on Rudy in '08, Kad. He's a tad too Liberal on the 2nd Amendment for my taste. As for being pro-choice, I don't think that would hurt either McCain or Guilliani too much, Ron. No true Conservative likes what the Supreme Court did with Roe v. Wade -- legislating from the bench like that was not Constitutionally sound. It was wrong. Most of us would prefer to have seen that corrected immediately and leave the issue where it belongs, at the State level.
If the GOP does return to its original Conservative roots, I think we'll see an interesting shift in the political landscape for '08.
Take these two observations together and Newt's simply not electable. McCain is electable, unfortunately. Any conservative who'd put his own name on a bill restricting political free speech has gone round the bend, IMO. But the media types do adore maverick McCain! "He's so sensible! Unlike those Far Right Newt-types!")
But I think Rudy's got a shot. It may be a long shot, but it's still a shot.
Two years until '08 and that's a long time to... Oh, who am I kidding? Rudy a goner, too. *sigh*
But I can dream, can't I?
Who else we got?
I would be willing to bet that Newt doesn't run in '08 if at all. He's doing well in the private sector and knows well what his liabilities are for the GOP to back him.
I hear a lot of talk about Mitt Romney. I want to do more research on his views before I comment much on him.
I'm glad Bill Frist decided against a run in '08. I think he's tainted by his own record in the Senate at this point. Mitch McConnell had best perk up and pay attention otherwise we'll be seeing more sloppy leadership from him as well.