Crazy as it sounds, it seems that Newt actually gave an interesting speech the other day. In some ways, it reminded me of Thomas Friedman – linking domestic energy policy with terrorism and the war in Iraq.
Some of the highlights from the article:
“None of you should believe we are winning this war. There is no evidence that we are winning this war,”… " We’ve been engaged in a phony war. The only people who have been taking this seriously are the combat military."
Gingrich… said more must be done to marshal national resources to combat Islamic militants at home and abroad and to prepare the country for future attack.
There’s also some stuff in there about how it was ridiculous how he couldn’t be a good republican if he said something nice about Hillary Clinton. (Ironic, no?)
While I’m happy to jump on the “iraq was dumb” bandwagon, using a politician as a source from which to make a decision about reality makes no sense. First, he has no firsthand knowledge of the war, he isn’t there fighting it, or even watching it.
Second, as a democrat he almost HAS to say it was a bad idea no matter what the reality is…just as a republican almost HAS to say it isn’t a bad idea.
So I kind of look at this as complete non-data.
Sad really that our leaders are essentially the least reliable source of truth possible.
I would be great to know what the generals on the field actually think, without their response being affected by what their ultimate superiors want them to say…
As politics clearly isn’t your thing, this particular gaffe is the political equivalent of writing a nice long post about Derek Jeter’s stellar career with the Red Sox.
Unless you are about 12 years old, or a non-North American citizen, you can pretty much write off any one ever taking anything you have to say about politics or American history or any related topic seriously. Like, forever. My guess is this will get posted back at you for the rest of your lifetime on ST.
okay…maybe not ANYTHING. I don’t follow politics as much as I should but I just think he is exactly what the Republican party is looking for. He seems to have it all: fiscally conservative, socially conservative, and experience.
Disclaimer…I really don’t know shit about politics.
Phew! I thought I missed a day in the news or something. I was having a hard time believing the Dem’s would even take him if he wanted to switch parties. Good lord Newt was Satan to the Dem’s in the mid 90’s.
Newt is unelectable. Then again I think Hillary is too. Too much baggage, too villanized. The second he even decides to run the Dem’s will bring up how he starved school children and shut the government down. Do you really want that for a president?
I just think the republicans are looking for a good old-fashioned conservative to stand up and say exactly what they want to hear. I’m sure the democrats could blast him but that hasn’t seemed to matter much with other republican candidates they’ve been blasting. The democrats simply don’t have anyone. Hilary and Obama are interesting but I just don’t see this country electing a black guy or a woman for quite some time. That’s sad to say but I think it’s the truth.
I guess the reason I say “I don’t know shit about politics” is that I’ve stopped paying attention. There just doesn’t seem to ever be anyone running for office that comes across as a strong leader who I would be proud to vote for.
I just think the republicans are looking for a good old-fashioned conservative to stand up and say exactly what they want to hear.
May be true but I don’t think most people, conservatives or otherwise, follow Newts hardline on some of the social issues. Couple that with his baggage and I don’t think he has a chance. Could be wrong though as possibly everyone has forgotten about him. He may seem to be a “New face” which is what WILL get elected.
As far as “Women or Black”, not sure that has as much to do with it as everything else. Hillary comes across as…, well as a nasty bitch. People don’t like that. Instead of coming across “Tough” which people like, it’s comes across as bitchy. Couple that with the fact that all conservatives have a hard on for Bill and she’s got no chance. O’bama, although he’s the media’s current “poster boy”, he has nothing to stand on and frankly is to liberal. Couple that with a few potential scandals and a small population that may be anti-black and he’s unelectable.
Right now we are so far out that anything could happen. I’m thinking that more than likely we’ll see new people pop in later in the game. Either that or the current front runners may collapse. More than likely I’m completely wrong though. Could just be wishful thinking on my part as presently, as usual, all my choices pretty much suck. Caveat here I really haven’t done a whole lot of looking into the Rep runners as there’s just too many right now.
That should have been in quotes as it will be a question based from the Dem’s. I’m with you. During the government “Shut down” in the mid 90’s the only thing different about my life was that I believe a few people couldn’t get passports. Not surprisingly someone was more than willing to take all of my weekly payroll tax payments. Go figure. “Nope we’re not open…well except for deposits, we’ll take those”
not to quibble w/any one thing you’ve said, but i can guarantee you this:
-there will be a democractic nominee
-there will be a republican nominee
-one of them will be elected president in 08.
i mean, yeah, there could be an independent elected. it’s conceivable. (bloomberg?). but really, i expect two of these candidates to be the finalists, whether it’s giuliani-clinton, obama-romney, etc. - not a lot of good options here, on either side, as far as i’m concerned.
not a lot of good options here, on either side, as far as i’m concerned.
Agreed and why I think it won’t be any of the current front runners. The only one that has stirred any real “excitement” is O’Bama and I’m betting they started to early and that will wear off before election time or primaries.
Again could all be wishful thinking on my part as I’d really like to see someone with instead of a “New face”, some new ideas.
At this point, I’m not sure I’d call Newt a Republican or Democrat or anything other than opportunist.
He’s in his own little world, thinking that if the current Republican field continues to stink up the joint that he can jump in at the end and save the day. He seems to forget that he was widely hated when he left, and considered something of a crackpot. And then there are those wife stories, of course. His effort is deader than Fred Thompson’s at this point.
In any case, I don’t think being a good Republican or Democrat at this point is defined by one’s stance on the war. The war has simply proceeded well beyond the limits of reason, so I think that opposing it doesn’t put one on any particular side. It’s like saying that opposing dropping a nuke on Mecca makes somebody a liberal.
Its more likely that a Bloomberg entry would shake things up. While he’s clearly not a conservative or Republican, my feeling is that the number of people in this country looking for a “true conservative” is far far below the number necessary to elect a President in the general election.