Now Gingrich is talking about a third party. To the right of the GOP.
For the most part, Gingrich is guilty of the political equivalent of squandering a big lead. In 1994, the Republicans took over the Senate and the House with Gingrich, as Speaker of the House, their de facto leader. At that time, it looked as though Clinton was doomed to spend the next two years of his first term as critically damaged and politically crippled President who would likely be swept out of office in 1996. However, Gingrich immediately overplayed his hand by doing things like trying to shut down the government and throwing a hissy fit over seating on Airforce One. There were also a number of ethical and personal scandals that steadily eroded his public image and his standing in the party. In the 1998 congressional elections, the Republicans ended up losing five seats in House despite Clinton’s impeachment and related “Monicagate” problems. With a party coup looming, Gingrich quickly resigned as Speaker and representative.
Please, please, please let this happen, with Newt Gingrich as its lead candidate, with Palin somewhere in there, or its Chair along with Michael Steele (if he lasts) as Chair of the [del]Other White Me[/del] Republican party and Jindal as its lead candidate.
I love how the Republicans lost partially for being a little too far to the right, so what do they want to do? Go further right! Obama/Whoever 2012 and Beyond!
It is so typical of a left-leaning board that no one…not one!..of you have offered even a word of praise for this leprous douchebag! See, it’s things like that which is the reason you never win any elections!
Then again, Bricker opened a GD thread, ostensibly because he had no idea what it meant (or why?) to refer to someone as a “fratboy”, and aldiboronti seemed to take a hint of umbrage at my claim that Newt’s heart is three sizes too small.
Although let’s be serious for a second : what kind of political future can you hope with a name like “Newt” ? You’re either a slimy reptile, a Monty Python reference, of a little girl from Aliens who gets everyone else in trouble.
salutes A-firmative…
-XT
Has Gingrich or any other Republican expalined why, if it’s so easy to take out Iran’s or North Koreas nuclear capablilties, it wasn’t already done under Bush?
As if being a Catholic worked for Brownback, Giuliani, or P. Buchanan. Catholics get to be on the Supreme Court. The President has to be a Protestant, so he will administer the death penalty.
Let’s assume the following:
- Newt Gingrich wants power and/or thinks America will be better off with him in power.
- Newt Gingrich thinks Obama’s policies will make the US less secure and thus result in an attack.
In that context, doesn’t it make complete sense for a calculating but powerless Newt to get up on the TV and spout off like he’s doing? Why do you need to add this to the pile?
- Newt Gingrich wants Americans to die.
It sounds like you think you have a grasp of the man beyond what can be deduced from his actions here alone, and maybe there is in fact a Jim Cramer style clip out there somewhere of him explaining how he wants to screw everyone over, but this isn’t it. He has a documented history of taking silly positions for political reasons (DRILL HERE DRILL NOW PAY LESS); he doesn’t have a history of using his power to bring Death to America.
Also Obama is a radical socialist and John Kerry voted against body armor because he hates our troops.
I’m not sure I agree with your syllogism. I think people can honestly — and fervently — hold the first two, but in doing so, they do not necessarily hold the third. However, it is possible to hold the third without it conflicting with the first two. This is underscored by the notion that people from both sides of the political spectrum wish harm on America and/or its citizens.
To use an extreme — and highly partisan — conservative as an example, I think Bob Grant ardently holds the first two, but not the third (disclaimer: I listened to Grant from the mid-eighties until he left WABC a decade or so ago, and on and off afterward, so my impression may be out of date). However, Newt (and I believe I mentioned Guliani upthread), IMHO, does.