The Discerning Texan
All that is necessary for evil to triumph, is for good men to do nothing.
-- Edmund Burke
-- Edmund Burke
Thursday, September 13, 2007
Newt Gingrich: How to Fight and Win the LONG War
As I have stated here many times, I think Fred Thompson would make an excellent President; his stands on the issues most important to me (the War, Homeland Security, Taxation, Guns, Capitalism...) are closer to my own beliefs than those of any other active candidate today. I've donated to Fred's campaign and fully expect to get even more involved as the primary gets closer.
With all that said, I would be dishonest if I did not make a confession here: I would charge into windmills to see Newt Gingrich inhabit the Oval Office... Quite frankly, the country and way of life that we know as "America" is probably under greater threat of extinction today than at any time since the Civil War--and if we don't do whatever is necessary now, whole American cities--along with the American economy--could well become the next casualties of the Islamist Fascists' long war of attrition against Western Civilization.
For me, the most alarming reality of all is that many of my friends--and many other Americans--don't even bother to consider such things; otherwise intelligent and responsible people simply cannot bring themselves to consider that all we have taken for granted for so long really is threatened. But ignorance of reality does not make it any less real.
I was arguing one night with my best friend from college; the subject was why I had become so single-minded and "negative" when it came to the War and politics in general. His statement was that he is an "optimist" and just did not like such negativity dragging him down (I guess he must not watch the news or read newspapers anymore, if that is indeed the case....)
Anyway, I've been giving this a lot of thought, because alienating one's friends is not something one sets out to do. And for me it comes down to one overriding, hard truth: there are unfortunately people in the Islamic world--many with a lot of money, power, or influence--who quite simply do not hold or adhere to a "do unto others" libertarian-like mindset. These are nihilist religious zealots. Some of them have access to dangerous WMD's or are seeking such access. Some of them are content with more conventional murder such as car bombs, passenger planes, IEDs or backpacks for discos. What all these people have in common is that they are openly willing to give their own lives in order to kill as many non-Muslims as possible--especially the "decadent Americans"--all because of a twisted, 9th century conception of a vengeful, angry, unforgiving God. And many of them have Imams who preach that these things will get them to paradise. These people are terrified of women--especially powerful ones whose face and/or body parts they can see. In their own cultures they keep women virtual prisoners, and their culture celebrates the killing of women who do not adhere to being veiled or being sexually chaste. (Yet strangely enough you don't hear a peep about the Islamists from the feminist left in this country...)
If it weren't enough that there are so many people out there who want us dead and who do not share the West's egalitarian mindset; there are also people in our own country--who through their own ignorance or misunderstanding of the reality that there are millions of people like this out there, choose to treat our enemies as "misunderstood", and that America or Israel are somehow to blame for our enemies' zealotry and hate; even though political Islam has been around and killing millions of the kafir (infidels) and repressing and murdering their own women since antiquity.
The most common mistake that many Westerners make when it comes to their own live and let live world view is that they believe that it is somehow inherent in human nature to hold that view, all present and historical evidence to the contrary notwithstanding. The view of "if we just leave them alone, they will leave us alone" derives from Judeo-Christian "Do unto others" roots--but even in the Bible this is the ideal to be strived for, not the harsh reality of the "real world". And so the mistaken conclusion--that people from other cultures have the same egalitarian view of life and tolerance of 'the other' as does the secular West--is a fatal flaw that prevents many Westerners who are not well-read on the subject from understanding the Islamist mindset, the twisted view of the world the Islamists have, and how cheap life--especially infidel lives--are to the people with this mindset...
Barbarism, beheading--and "religious conversion" via conquest, subjugation, and killing of non-believers--have been an integral part of Islam since its inception over a thousand years ago. Israel has been around for about 50 years. Yet the mythology the left would have you believe is that all these Islamists killing each other and others in the name of their God is because of Israel... or because of America. Even in places like Bali, Kashmir, India, Indonesia and Somalia... and places like Russia, Chechnya, Bosnia, Darfur, Madrid, Amsterdam, Germany, Italy, France, the UK, the Phillipines, Thailand.... and the list goes on. So--let me make sure I've got this straight--when Muslims blow up a Christian church in the Phillipines, or when a man stones his daughter to death in Tehran--all this killing is because of Israel and America, have I got that right?
Long before Israel or America came along, Islamists have been killing "infidels": the Barbary pirates, the conquest of Spain and Turkey and Egypt and Iraq and Persia, the invasion of Eastern Europe which was halted at the Gates of Vienna, the subjugation of southern Asia and Northern Africa, the conquest (twice) of the Holy Land. Even the barbarism of the Christian Crusades were defensive wars designed to free peoples which had already been conquered by invading, head-chopping Islamist hordes. Yet we are supposed to believe that the sole motivation of our Islamist enemies is America or Israel? Tell me another one...
Yet how many people in America and Europe actually believe that garbage (no thanks to a cooperative leftist media and educational institutions which no longer stress the teaching of military history)? Answer: too damn many. Propaganda works insidiously, over time--until one day no one is around who even remembers the truth or groks the lies which are paraded before them every single day by a sickly partisan news media.
And so--even though for the most part we are talking about good, kind people--these Western "optimists" can be as dangerous to our own way of life as our enemies; perhaps even more dangerous, because they can use their influence and a common belief that any human being is by definition "decent"--to prevent those of us who do give a damn from taking the important steps that must be taken to protect our civilization and way of life.
But the worst of the worst is our openly partisan and seditious news media; their false "optimism" is to be feared every bit as much as is the evil and barbarism of our enemies. And so when it comes to those of us who do understand the high stakes in play, the so called "pessimists" (to use my friend's nomenclature)--it is we alone who stand between the millions of sociopathic Islamist monsters and their goal of annihallating us all. Sure, we are only talking about maybe 3-4% of Muslims here--but there are hundreds of millions of Muslims; 3-4% is a LOT of people. Many of these people have connections, money... and a burning desire to kill us for Allah. And Muslims are reproducing at a much faster rate than any other demographic in the World
The sad fact is that--even after the events of 9/11--a sadly large majority of the American people are in critical need of a leader capable of waking them up to the reality of the darkness which awaits our country if we do not act forcefully to stop our enemies now. We live in momentous, consequential times, and momentous times call for momentous leadership to snap America out of its ostrich-like dream world, before our enemies snap us out of it with an American holocaust.
On September 10, Newt Gingrich spoke to the American Enterprise Institute with a speech called "What If? An Alternative History of the War on Terror." This speech is rather long, and there is about a 30 minute Q and A afterwards. But the ideas in this speech--the brutal honesty and thought that went into it--are such a breath of fresh air compared to what I am used to from other politicians. Truth--when it is laid out logically and eloquently--is a powerful motivator. Gingrich is precisely the kind of leader America sorely needs at this stage of history.
Newt has said all along that he would decide at the end of September whether or not to enter the race. Is that too late to have a chance to win? Possibly. But a Gingrich candidacy would nevertheless be difficult for me personally to ignore.
If Gingrich does not get in, it is my great hope that he will throw his full weight and energy helping to get Fred Thompson and Republican Senators and Congressmen elected. Newt and Fred are an excellent ideological match; Gingrich is a brilliant communicator and would be a tremendous campaign asset; and--last but not least--because Gingrich would make a superb Secretary of War/State in a Thompson Administration. If there is anyone who could implement the kind of dramatic reforms at the State Department (which he touches on in the speech), it is Gingrich. Hell, with Newt wading into that bureaucracy, and kicking ass and taking names for 8 years over there, the War/State Department might actually become an asset to America instead of the liability it is today.
In any case, do not let the length of the speech deter you: bookmark this post for when you have an hour and a half to really sit back, relax, and ponder the future of your country. And prepare to be inspired. There are not a lot of cheap platitudes here; this is a serious discussion, chock full of substance. But if ever there was a time for us all to collectively get serious, now is that time. This is how we should be fighting this war--and the sooner the better. Joe Bob says "check it out."
With all that said, I would be dishonest if I did not make a confession here: I would charge into windmills to see Newt Gingrich inhabit the Oval Office... Quite frankly, the country and way of life that we know as "America" is probably under greater threat of extinction today than at any time since the Civil War--and if we don't do whatever is necessary now, whole American cities--along with the American economy--could well become the next casualties of the Islamist Fascists' long war of attrition against Western Civilization.
For me, the most alarming reality of all is that many of my friends--and many other Americans--don't even bother to consider such things; otherwise intelligent and responsible people simply cannot bring themselves to consider that all we have taken for granted for so long really is threatened. But ignorance of reality does not make it any less real.
I was arguing one night with my best friend from college; the subject was why I had become so single-minded and "negative" when it came to the War and politics in general. His statement was that he is an "optimist" and just did not like such negativity dragging him down (I guess he must not watch the news or read newspapers anymore, if that is indeed the case....)
Anyway, I've been giving this a lot of thought, because alienating one's friends is not something one sets out to do. And for me it comes down to one overriding, hard truth: there are unfortunately people in the Islamic world--many with a lot of money, power, or influence--who quite simply do not hold or adhere to a "do unto others" libertarian-like mindset. These are nihilist religious zealots. Some of them have access to dangerous WMD's or are seeking such access. Some of them are content with more conventional murder such as car bombs, passenger planes, IEDs or backpacks for discos. What all these people have in common is that they are openly willing to give their own lives in order to kill as many non-Muslims as possible--especially the "decadent Americans"--all because of a twisted, 9th century conception of a vengeful, angry, unforgiving God. And many of them have Imams who preach that these things will get them to paradise. These people are terrified of women--especially powerful ones whose face and/or body parts they can see. In their own cultures they keep women virtual prisoners, and their culture celebrates the killing of women who do not adhere to being veiled or being sexually chaste. (Yet strangely enough you don't hear a peep about the Islamists from the feminist left in this country...)
If it weren't enough that there are so many people out there who want us dead and who do not share the West's egalitarian mindset; there are also people in our own country--who through their own ignorance or misunderstanding of the reality that there are millions of people like this out there, choose to treat our enemies as "misunderstood", and that America or Israel are somehow to blame for our enemies' zealotry and hate; even though political Islam has been around and killing millions of the kafir (infidels) and repressing and murdering their own women since antiquity.
The most common mistake that many Westerners make when it comes to their own live and let live world view is that they believe that it is somehow inherent in human nature to hold that view, all present and historical evidence to the contrary notwithstanding. The view of "if we just leave them alone, they will leave us alone" derives from Judeo-Christian "Do unto others" roots--but even in the Bible this is the ideal to be strived for, not the harsh reality of the "real world". And so the mistaken conclusion--that people from other cultures have the same egalitarian view of life and tolerance of 'the other' as does the secular West--is a fatal flaw that prevents many Westerners who are not well-read on the subject from understanding the Islamist mindset, the twisted view of the world the Islamists have, and how cheap life--especially infidel lives--are to the people with this mindset...
Barbarism, beheading--and "religious conversion" via conquest, subjugation, and killing of non-believers--have been an integral part of Islam since its inception over a thousand years ago. Israel has been around for about 50 years. Yet the mythology the left would have you believe is that all these Islamists killing each other and others in the name of their God is because of Israel... or because of America. Even in places like Bali, Kashmir, India, Indonesia and Somalia... and places like Russia, Chechnya, Bosnia, Darfur, Madrid, Amsterdam, Germany, Italy, France, the UK, the Phillipines, Thailand.... and the list goes on. So--let me make sure I've got this straight--when Muslims blow up a Christian church in the Phillipines, or when a man stones his daughter to death in Tehran--all this killing is because of Israel and America, have I got that right?
Long before Israel or America came along, Islamists have been killing "infidels": the Barbary pirates, the conquest of Spain and Turkey and Egypt and Iraq and Persia, the invasion of Eastern Europe which was halted at the Gates of Vienna, the subjugation of southern Asia and Northern Africa, the conquest (twice) of the Holy Land. Even the barbarism of the Christian Crusades were defensive wars designed to free peoples which had already been conquered by invading, head-chopping Islamist hordes. Yet we are supposed to believe that the sole motivation of our Islamist enemies is America or Israel? Tell me another one...
Yet how many people in America and Europe actually believe that garbage (no thanks to a cooperative leftist media and educational institutions which no longer stress the teaching of military history)? Answer: too damn many. Propaganda works insidiously, over time--until one day no one is around who even remembers the truth or groks the lies which are paraded before them every single day by a sickly partisan news media.
And so--even though for the most part we are talking about good, kind people--these Western "optimists" can be as dangerous to our own way of life as our enemies; perhaps even more dangerous, because they can use their influence and a common belief that any human being is by definition "decent"--to prevent those of us who do give a damn from taking the important steps that must be taken to protect our civilization and way of life.
But the worst of the worst is our openly partisan and seditious news media; their false "optimism" is to be feared every bit as much as is the evil and barbarism of our enemies. And so when it comes to those of us who do understand the high stakes in play, the so called "pessimists" (to use my friend's nomenclature)--it is we alone who stand between the millions of sociopathic Islamist monsters and their goal of annihallating us all. Sure, we are only talking about maybe 3-4% of Muslims here--but there are hundreds of millions of Muslims; 3-4% is a LOT of people. Many of these people have connections, money... and a burning desire to kill us for Allah. And Muslims are reproducing at a much faster rate than any other demographic in the World
The sad fact is that--even after the events of 9/11--a sadly large majority of the American people are in critical need of a leader capable of waking them up to the reality of the darkness which awaits our country if we do not act forcefully to stop our enemies now. We live in momentous, consequential times, and momentous times call for momentous leadership to snap America out of its ostrich-like dream world, before our enemies snap us out of it with an American holocaust.
On September 10, Newt Gingrich spoke to the American Enterprise Institute with a speech called "What If? An Alternative History of the War on Terror." This speech is rather long, and there is about a 30 minute Q and A afterwards. But the ideas in this speech--the brutal honesty and thought that went into it--are such a breath of fresh air compared to what I am used to from other politicians. Truth--when it is laid out logically and eloquently--is a powerful motivator. Gingrich is precisely the kind of leader America sorely needs at this stage of history.
Newt has said all along that he would decide at the end of September whether or not to enter the race. Is that too late to have a chance to win? Possibly. But a Gingrich candidacy would nevertheless be difficult for me personally to ignore.
If Gingrich does not get in, it is my great hope that he will throw his full weight and energy helping to get Fred Thompson and Republican Senators and Congressmen elected. Newt and Fred are an excellent ideological match; Gingrich is a brilliant communicator and would be a tremendous campaign asset; and--last but not least--because Gingrich would make a superb Secretary of War/State in a Thompson Administration. If there is anyone who could implement the kind of dramatic reforms at the State Department (which he touches on in the speech), it is Gingrich. Hell, with Newt wading into that bureaucracy, and kicking ass and taking names for 8 years over there, the War/State Department might actually become an asset to America instead of the liability it is today.
In any case, do not let the length of the speech deter you: bookmark this post for when you have an hour and a half to really sit back, relax, and ponder the future of your country. And prepare to be inspired. There are not a lot of cheap platitudes here; this is a serious discussion, chock full of substance. But if ever there was a time for us all to collectively get serious, now is that time. This is how we should be fighting this war--and the sooner the better. Joe Bob says "check it out."
Labels: Government Bureaucrats, Homeland Security, Islamic Fascism, Newt Gingrich, Republican, The Long War
Wednesday, September 05, 2007
UPDATED Fred Jumps In...
...I'm not quite sure I agree with how he did it--but then again I am watching this Republican debate, and it is truly easy to understand why he would not want to take part in this particular dog and pony show. Good grief: when I see Ron Paul shoot off his mouth it makes me ashamed that I share the same home state with that man.
I am looking forward to helping a true conservative win this race, and right now I think that Fred Thompson is the most bona fide conservative in the race who has a chance to win. There are aspects of many of the other candiadates that I like, but for the things that really matter--the War against militant Islamism, Tax Reform, Federalism, Illegal Immigration and Border Protection, Second Amendment Rights, and Constructionist Judges who won't legislate from the bench--Fred is the best in the field, so far as I can see.
One slight caveat: I cannot sit here and pretend that a man with the intellect and communications skills of Newt Gingrich would not be a temptation for me, were he to jump in; the ability to communicate a strong stirring message cannot be over-emphasized, and that is the only real unknown for me about Fred--whereas Newt is almost Reaganesque in his ability to inspire. But at the moment Gingrich is he is not in, and Fred Thompson is--and I am acting on that basis.
It is going to be an interesting month, indeed.
UPDATE: Great appearance on the Tonight Show. Fred has already proved the pundits wrong: it was a master move not getting into that shouting match with Space Cadet Paul. I'm pumped.
Also check out this nice Thompson profile in the Washington Post. A pleasant surprise.
I am looking forward to helping a true conservative win this race, and right now I think that Fred Thompson is the most bona fide conservative in the race who has a chance to win. There are aspects of many of the other candiadates that I like, but for the things that really matter--the War against militant Islamism, Tax Reform, Federalism, Illegal Immigration and Border Protection, Second Amendment Rights, and Constructionist Judges who won't legislate from the bench--Fred is the best in the field, so far as I can see.
One slight caveat: I cannot sit here and pretend that a man with the intellect and communications skills of Newt Gingrich would not be a temptation for me, were he to jump in; the ability to communicate a strong stirring message cannot be over-emphasized, and that is the only real unknown for me about Fred--whereas Newt is almost Reaganesque in his ability to inspire. But at the moment Gingrich is he is not in, and Fred Thompson is--and I am acting on that basis.
It is going to be an interesting month, indeed.
UPDATE: Great appearance on the Tonight Show. Fred has already proved the pundits wrong: it was a master move not getting into that shouting match with Space Cadet Paul. I'm pumped.
Also check out this nice Thompson profile in the Washington Post. A pleasant surprise.
Labels: 2008 Presidential Race, Fred Thompson, Newt Gingrich
Sunday, August 26, 2007
Best Audio of the Week: Gingrich on the choice between an American Golden Age or the Decline and Fall of America
I saw that Townhall had the audio of the entire 45 minute speech that Newt Gingrich recently gave to the Young America's Foundation linked, and thought I would give it a listen because I am a big fan of Newt Gingrich's intellect.
This was a very, very good decision. Gingrich's optimism here is contagious and his vision of not only where we can go, but of how we get there is about the most inspiring, yet intellectually honest thing I have heard in quite some time. And his consequences for continuing down the road we are on are equally straightforward and stark. Check it out here; this will be the best 45 minutes you spend all week. (it can also be downloaded to your iPod or other PDA device.)
And as I said yesterday: if Gingrich is now backing Fred Thompson, that alone is one hell of a good reason to get out there and campaign for Fred.
This was a very, very good decision. Gingrich's optimism here is contagious and his vision of not only where we can go, but of how we get there is about the most inspiring, yet intellectually honest thing I have heard in quite some time. And his consequences for continuing down the road we are on are equally straightforward and stark. Check it out here; this will be the best 45 minutes you spend all week. (it can also be downloaded to your iPod or other PDA device.)
And as I said yesterday: if Gingrich is now backing Fred Thompson, that alone is one hell of a good reason to get out there and campaign for Fred.
Labels: American Culture, American History, Economics, Fred Thompson, Newt Gingrich
Saturday, August 25, 2007
Is Fred being advised by Gingrich??
A very interesting tidbit from Robert Novak today--which if true could be a big boost to Fred Thompson's chances:
Fred Thompson's decision to announce his presidential candidacy with a video was suggested by Newt Gingrich, who is considered a possible contender himself.Former House Speaker Gingrich has indicated he will run only if Thompson does not or his late-starting campaign crashes and burns. Actor-politician Thompson plans to follow the model of Democrat Hillary Clinton by launching his campaign with a video, followed by a fly-around to several cities.
Gingrich has expressed contempt for becoming one of many announced Republican candidates at crowded debates. Thompson has decided to be one of many at the Sept. 27 debate at Baltimore's Morgan State University.
This would be a huge win/win for conservatives looking for a candidate. Thompson is a candidate with far fewer negatives than Gingrich, but who would benefit greatly from the former Speaker's intellect and ideas; and he would also benefit by Gingrich not diluting his potential base by entering the race himself. Alternatively, if Thompson wins, Gingrich could figure prominently in a Thompson Administration--as either his running mate or as a Senior Cabinet member.
As I see it our country needs both men to help lead us in this time of extreme national peril; and if Gingrich were to throw his complete support behind Thompson, it will be that much easier for people like me to get 100% behind the campaign. Stay tuned...
Labels: 2008 Presidential Race, Fred Thompson, Newt Gingrich, Republican
Thursday, August 16, 2007
Where the Surge Isn't Working
It is all well and good that our surge in Iraq seems to be making a big difference against Al Qaeda there; but there are other fronts in this War. And until very recently we seem to have all but ignored the front of the War where we are losing ground everyday: protecting our borders.
For Newt Gingrich, the senseless execution-style murders in New Jersey is a "wake up call" that we all need to pay attention to; like it or not, we are being invaded:
For Newt Gingrich, the senseless execution-style murders in New Jersey is a "wake up call" that we all need to pay attention to; like it or not, we are being invaded:
The night of Saturday, August 4, four young, college students were forced to kneel against a wall in a schoolyard in Newark, New Jersey.Read the whole thing.
They were then shot, execution-style, in the head. Three were killed and a fourth survived.
Just as the entertainment and free barbecue of the Iowa presidential beauty contest was getting underway, the news broke that the shooter in the Newark killings was an illegal immigrant who had recently been indicted for repeatedly raping a five-year-old relative and threatening the lives of her and her family.
He had also been arrested ten months ago for assaulting patrons at a bar. Fox News reported that the man’s illegal status had been known to officials since his previous arrests. And yet he was still out on the streets of America, free to kill, on a Saturday night in Newark.
For everyone who cares about the future of America, these killings of innocent Americans are a wake-up call.
There is a war here at home, and it is even more deadly than the war in Iraq and Afghanistan. Far more Americans are being killed by violent, evil people here in America than in our official military “combat zones” overseas.
Americans are killed by violent criminals all too often, of course. But the senselessness and tragedy of these killings and too many others is that they were completely preventable. Their perpetrators were men who should not have been in the United States to begin with and, after multiple previous arrests, shouldn’t have been on the streets. Instead, they should have been in jail awaiting trial, sentencing, prison, and eventual deportation.
The contrast between the empty politics of our endless presidential-election process and the total failure of our government to protect the four young victims in Newark could not be more stark. No matter how big, painful, or urgent the problem — be it failing levies in New Orleans, failing schools in Detroit or failing bridges in Minnesota — we are trapped in politics as usual and partisan wrangling as usual.
Labels: Border Protection, Illegal Immigration, Newt Gingrich, The Long War
Saturday, August 11, 2007
Getting around the Elephants in the room
Don Surber reports on Newt Gingrich and his solution to the problem of communicating to the electorate via a hostile media:
I hope the folks up at the RNC--and in the Thompson, Giuliani, and Romney campaigns--are listening... this election may go to the side which best utilizes the Web. So far I have not seen a lot of evidence that the Republicans are doing that.Newt Gingrich has a plan for Republicans to keep the White House after next year: Do like Nikolas Sarkozy and bypass the media.
Shades of Ronald Reagan.
Speaking at the National Press Club this week, Newt said Sarkozy set up 16 YouTube-like sites on the Internet and bypassed the French media.
“What (Sarkozy) said is, ‘If I can communicate with you, then the news media can watch our conversation,’ which is very different than having a conversation with the news media which (average people) watch.
“The second thing is he made a very important speech where he said we must have a clean break (from Chirac). And I would say to (Republican) candidates, there is a lot of parallel there.”
Republicans can compete on the Internet with Democrats on whose reliance on foul-mouthed, angry sites such as Daily Kos taints them as the party of hate, pessimism and negativity. Republicans need to avoid anger and cursing, and instead offer Americans hope and a reason for optimism.
People need to remember, hits are not votes. The people who vote are older and wiser and will not be swayed by snarky socialists.
Labels: 2008 Presidential Race, Newt Gingrich, Republican
Sunday, July 29, 2007
Gingrich: Making Lots of Sense on Fox News Sunday
I thought that former Speaker Newt Gingrich's appearance on Fox News Sunday today was really spot on; the guy makes an incredible amount of sense. Here is the transcript.
Labels: 2008 Presidential Race, Democrat Sabotage, Newt Gingrich
Wednesday, July 25, 2007
Is Newt Gingrich going to back Fred?
Anyone who knows me knows how much I appreciate and admire the mind of Newt Gingrich; to me he articulates the vision of the Conservative movement better than almost anyone--living or dead. However Gingrich also has many many enemies, and a number of personal negatives left over from his tenure as Speaker. This was the biggest reason why, when Fred Thompson began to signal his interest in running, Thompson's negatives appeared to be much more palatable to me (and to many other conservatives) than those of the controversial former Speaker. Both Gingrich and Thompson have big upsides, but Fred would not bring nearly so much baggage into a General Election campaign.
For all these reasons, when I saw this tantalizing story in The Politico today, my heart raced. Because a Thompson candidacy with Gingrich behind it becomes even more formidable:
Stay tuned--this could be a very interesting fall campaign.
For all these reasons, when I saw this tantalizing story in The Politico today, my heart raced. Because a Thompson candidacy with Gingrich behind it becomes even more formidable:
Newt Gingrich's long, slow striptease over whether he will seek the presidency in 2008 looks like it might come to an unexpected conclusion: a date with Fred Thompson.If Gingrich does back Thompson, the prospect of a Gingrich role in a Thompson Administration would be another enticing reason to support Thompson: Gingrich is so intelligent he could excel in virtually any role, from White House chief of staff to Vice President to Secretary of State or Defense.... even Communications Director or Press Secretary: Gingrich is so articulate that he would instantly make Communicating the President's message to the electorate a big area of improvement over the current Administration.
Publicly, Gingrich has been sending signals making clear that a presidential candidacy for him is becoming less likely. Privately, he and some of his closest advisers have been meeting with -- and, in at least one prominent case, going to work for -- the lobbyist-actor and former Tennessee senator.
"I've always said it was unlikely I would run," Gingrich said in an interview last Friday with The Associated Press. And, he added, if Thompson "runs and does well, then I think that makes it easier for me not to run."
The same day that Gingrich made his comments, his former communications director, Rich Galen, disclosed that he had signed on as an adviser to Thompson's campaign in waiting. In an interview, Galen termed the coincidence "an unfortunate confluence of events," denying that there was any link.
But that was not the only evidence of a possible Thompson-Gingrich alliance in 2008. Gingrich and his wife, Calista, had dinner with Thompson and his wife, Jeri, at the former senator's home in McLean, Va., on July 16, according to two Republican sources close to both men. A Thompson aide would say only that "a good policy discussion" was had over the meal.
If a Gingrich endorsement of Thompson happens, it probably won't be until at least October. For one thing, Thompson isn't likely to formally announce his candidacy until after Labor Day. But Gingrich has also said repeatedly that he would hold off any decision until after he marks the 13th anniversary of the Contract With America -- the manifesto that spurred the GOP takeover of the House in 1994 -- by holding an online policy seminar in late September.
Stay tuned--this could be a very interesting fall campaign.
Labels: 2008 Presidential Race, Fred Thompson, Newt Gingrich, Republican
Sunday, June 03, 2007
Making Loads of Sense
Newt Gingrich gets serious on Fox News:
Just take this week. An American with tuberculosis shows up at the border. We're in the middle of a debate over immigration and controlling the border. He shows up at the border. The computer says do not let him enter and only deal with him in a hazardous suit.
And the border patrol currently is so ill-trained, or the immigration service is so ill-trained, that the guy lets him in — looks at him with his eyeballs and says, "you know, I don't think he looks sick," and lets him in.
You learn that there are three illegal terrorists in New Jersey who were in the U.S. for 23 years illegally, intercepted by the police 75 times in the last six years, and it was never indicated that they were here illegally.You go through this list. You say to yourself this government — I mean, not just the president. This is not about the presidency. The government is not functioning. It's not getting the job done.
Labels: 2008 Presidential Race, Illegal Immigration, Newt Gingrich
Monday, May 21, 2007
Newt: Immigration Shipwreck Ahead?
Ragnar Danneskjold quotes from Newt Gingrich's email alert:
The announcement last week that the White House and a group of senators have reached an agreement on "comprehensive immigration
reform" should have the same effect that the word "iceberg" had on the passengers and crew of the Titanic.This proposed agreement is a disaster of the first order, and it would severely cripple America for the foreseeable future.
You can tell how bad this bill is by the Senate Democratic leadership's announced goal of trying to pass it before the Memorial Day weekend.
Remember, this bill has not yet been finished. Senators and their staffs were still negotiating over the weekend and many key items were still in confusion. So here's what we have to do:
TODAY'S ACTION ITEM: CALL YOUR SENATORS AND LET THEM KNOW HOW ANGRY YOU WILL BE IF THEY PASS A BILL BEFORE IT HAS BEEN PRINTED AND PUT ON THE INTERNET AND EXPOSED FOR THE COUNTRY TO READ AND UNDERSTAND.
Labels: Illegal Immigration, Newt Gingrich
Monday, May 14, 2007
It looks like Newt is IN
Rick Moran reports that Former Speaker Newt Gingrich has all but announced his entry into the race. This is going to make things interesting...
Labels: 2008 Presidential Race, Newt Gingrich
Friday, April 27, 2007
"Laugh about it, shout about it, when you've got to choose, any way you look at it you lose..."
Ann Althouse blogged the Democrat debates last night, (to the tune of "Mrs. Robinson"), which is a good thing because I personally could not bear to sit through that level of insanity for a full hour and a half... From what Althouse writes, however the debate was tired, scripted, and (my own opinion) an excellent argument for the Gingrich Debate Proposal:
This makes so much sense: It would give the electorate a dramatically better sense of who can lead and who are the pretenders; of and who can really think for themselves--using actual ideas rather than in sound bytes--and of who we would not want within a hundred miles of the Oval Office.
The Presidency is the most high-pressure job on Earth: and if a candidate can't handle the pressure of articulating his/her ideas in a REAL 90-minute discussion of issues--rather than in scripted sound-bytes--why in the world would I want them to be my President?
These are serious and consequential times, and our Presidency deserves a serious and consequential debate of what really matters. It appears that we have a long way to go.
The reason this idea resonates so much for me is that it would turn our current yawners into real dialogue, which would not allow for the same tired scripted answers which never seem to actually answer the question asked. Why not just have the moderator say: "OK, 90-minutes, the topic is 'the War', GO..." and then let the dialogue begin?Gingrich, in fact, has issued a broad proposal to the current crop of presidential candidates, Republicans and Democrats alike, to engage in a series of one-on-one faceoffs that would be lengthier and more challenging than the “cattle call” candidate forums generally staged on the campaign trail.
He has challenged each presidential candidate to participate in a total of nine 90-minute debates. The debates would take place over nine weeks before party nominations and involve only two candidates at a time.
...
Russert said he will ask “each and every” presidential candidate to participate in the nine debates.At the 1996, 2000 and 2004 presidential debates, candidates agreed to 53 pages of debating rules, Gingrich said. The campaign process “is decaying at a level that is bizarre,” he added, blaming the candidates, their consultants and the media.The eight Democratic candidates who participated in the 2008 campaign’s first televised forum in Carson City, Nev., Feb 21, spoke for a lot less time than Gingrich envisions. Democrats appeared on stage separately, each giving a two-minute opening statement, followed by three questions, then a one-minute closing statement. They interacted with their host and the audience but not with each other.
Gingrich’s proposed debates “would change the entire tenor” of the elections, he said.The length of the debates would force in-depth discussion rather than soundbites, he said. He also said, “Nothing will take more poison out of the system than requiring the candidates to be in the same room,” because they will be less likely to verbally attack each other.
This makes so much sense: It would give the electorate a dramatically better sense of who can lead and who are the pretenders; of and who can really think for themselves--using actual ideas rather than in sound bytes--and of who we would not want within a hundred miles of the Oval Office.
The Presidency is the most high-pressure job on Earth: and if a candidate can't handle the pressure of articulating his/her ideas in a REAL 90-minute discussion of issues--rather than in scripted sound-bytes--why in the world would I want them to be my President?
These are serious and consequential times, and our Presidency deserves a serious and consequential debate of what really matters. It appears that we have a long way to go.
Labels: 2008 Presidential Race, Democrat, Democrat Sabotage, Newt Gingrich
Tuesday, April 03, 2007
Rolling the Dice on Newt?
The Politico speculates on what the rest of we Republicans are speculating on. I wish I found something to disagree with in Matt Lewis' analysis of the current candidates, but I can't. And I too am intrigued by the allure of Newt. But to be fair, I doubt a Gingrich candidacy would be anywhere close to the disaster the '64 Goldwater nomination was. I think it would be more like 1980; after just two years of Democrats in the Congress, the people will be ready for some real leadership--and that is definitely not coming from Hillary or Obama. And Gingrich is a debater's dream. He is a Reagan--a man with not only a vision, but the means to communicate that vision to the masses. How bad could we have used that trait in the last 6 years?
However if I were Gingrich I would jump in sooner rather than later; Fred Thompson looks to be an extremely viable candidate, and he doesn't have Newt's perceived negatives. (h/t Glenn Reynolds).
However if I were Gingrich I would jump in sooner rather than later; Fred Thompson looks to be an extremely viable candidate, and he doesn't have Newt's perceived negatives. (h/t Glenn Reynolds).
Labels: 2008 Presidential Race, Newt Gingrich, US Politics
Wednesday, March 14, 2007
Thomas Sowell: Gingrich is Worth a Look (p.s. so is Mitt)
Hey, he said it, I didn't. (but I don't disagree--if he gets in it will be hard for me not to back the Gentleman from Georgia)
Meanwhile, Hugh Hewitt's new book suggests that Mitt get a second look as well. Dean Barnett comments. No objections here. In fact I thought that this was quite impressive too.
If they both get in, so much the better. Pres and VP, perhaps? In any case, the more quality candidates, the better the chance the Republicans will field a candidate that will blow the Democrats two year chickenhawk disaster out of the water.
Meanwhile, Hugh Hewitt's new book suggests that Mitt get a second look as well. Dean Barnett comments. No objections here. In fact I thought that this was quite impressive too.
If they both get in, so much the better. Pres and VP, perhaps? In any case, the more quality candidates, the better the chance the Republicans will field a candidate that will blow the Democrats two year chickenhawk disaster out of the water.
Labels: 2008 Presidential Race, Mitt Romney, Newt Gingrich, Republican
Tuesday, March 13, 2007
Gingrich Comes Clean -- Before he jumps in
I think this is really, really smart strategy (Rich Lowry):
Here is a piece noting (somewhat critically) Newt's confession strategy: Get out in front of his personal problems from the past by talking frankly about them now. This makes sense. I think it was shrewd for Newt to go on Dobson to talk about this stuff. Dobson wasn't a soft-ball interviewer—he didn't let Newt get away with anything—but at the deepest level he was sympathetic to Newt and his plea for God's forgiveness. Politically, however, there is a limit to how much Newt can do to minimize the damage from that time in his career. He can perhaps minimize it at the margins, but the perceptions of his recklessness and poor judgment (which account for Newt's high negatives) probably aren't going to go away. I have a keen appreciation of Newt's talents and strengths, but if he runs, he's probably going to have to find a way to win despite those high negatives. There's no way to "inoculate" himself from them, certainly not with one radio interview.Lowry has a point: one interview won't do it. But I like the pro-activeness. And (obviously, to anyone who has been reading the DT) I think Gingrich would make one hell of a President.
Labels: 2008 Presidential Race, Newt Gingrich, Republican, US Politics
Thursday, March 01, 2007
Newt at Cooper Union
If you happened to hear Bill Bennett's interview with Newt Gingrich yesterday--shortly before Gingrich was to leave for his debate last night with Mario Cuomo at Cooper Union in New York--then you already know who needs to be the next President; in fact it shouldn't even be in question. And if you actually watched the debate, well...
If you were not so lucky, the Cooper Union debate can be viewed here. But here is the shorthand version--and I could not agree more with Spruell's concluding graf:
During the subsequent Q&A with Russert (now down to just one crutch), he asked Cuomo which two candidates should win their party’s nominations in 2008. Cuomo played it safe and wouldn’t say which Democrat he prefers, but he did say that on the Republican side, “Newt would make a terrific nominee.” Watching from the audience last night, it looked like Cuomo wasn’t the only one on stage with that idea.
Mr. Speaker--as Phil Knight likes to put it: "Just Do It."
If you were not so lucky, the Cooper Union debate can be viewed here. But here is the shorthand version--and I could not agree more with Spruell's concluding graf:
During the subsequent Q&A with Russert (now down to just one crutch), he asked Cuomo which two candidates should win their party’s nominations in 2008. Cuomo played it safe and wouldn’t say which Democrat he prefers, but he did say that on the Republican side, “Newt would make a terrific nominee.” Watching from the audience last night, it looked like Cuomo wasn’t the only one on stage with that idea.
Mr. Speaker--as Phil Knight likes to put it: "Just Do It."
Labels: 2008 Presidential Race, Newt Gingrich, Republican
Tuesday, February 20, 2007
Mitt Romney is running Presidential Ads!
Mitt Romney's new ad is about to air in about 4-5 states. Here is the YouTube link.
Romney is an impressive man, but I countinue to hold out hope for Newt; at this rate though, September may be way too late to jump in.
I'm having a hard time deciding between Mitt and Rudy when it comes to second choice; McCain would be a very difficult vote for me to cast...
Romney is an impressive man, but I countinue to hold out hope for Newt; at this rate though, September may be way too late to jump in.
I'm having a hard time deciding between Mitt and Rudy when it comes to second choice; McCain would be a very difficult vote for me to cast...
Labels: Mitt Romney, Newt Gingrich, Republican, US Politics
Saturday, February 17, 2007
Newt's Brilliant Idea
Words are inappropriate to describe how much I admire former Speaker Newt Gingrich. If he were to become a serious candidate for President (and he may... later), the checkbook would be open and the dollars would be flowing.
Gingrich is starting an initiative to try and get candidates from both parties to debate frequently--not just with other Primary candidates in their own party, but also against the Opposition party, during the primaries. Gingrich and others from across the aisle like former New York Governor Mario Cuomo are promoting the idea in order to lessen the bitter partisan campaigns of the recent past by encouraging ongoing party-to-party discussion of the issues. Gingrich argues that it does not encourage dialogue and bipartisan solutions to American problems to simply have the parties go to opposite corners and for each party to fan the flames of red-meat partisanship with "their own". The idea is by (occasionally, not every time) getting primary candidates to debate other primary candidates of the other party, the country might experience less fire-breathing partisanship and more real dialogue. Gingrich has already begun this process himself, and yesterday he held a dialogue with liberal New York Senator Chuck Schumer, which will be followed by other dates debating Democrats across the country.
Of course it goes without saying that Gingrich is--quite simply--brilliant, and that a man with the combination of his intellect, his charisma/presence, and his ability to articulate and argue for those ideas would no doubt be a serious danger to all-fluff-and-no-substance candidates like Hillary and Obama in any debate. And no doubt his ongoing debtes with Democrats around the country will be "good practice"... to say the least.
But his personal prowess aside, Gingrich deserves his props for this debate the other party idea. In addition to the points discussed above, this approach would give primary voters a good look at the debating skills of thier favorite candidates up against the party they will run against in the fall--if you will, a sneak preview of possible Presidential debates. I especially like this idea, because it would encourage candidates of both parties to get away from the current practice of showing one "face" to their own party to get the nomination, and then showing another (opposite) "face" in the fall in order to win the general election. Party to party debates during Primary season (or before) would give each party a much more realistic idea of what their Primary candidates really stand for, while hopefully taking some of the bitter negativity out of campaigning. I personally think it is a tremendous idea, and the fact that Gingrich came up with the idea only makes his candidacy that much more attractive.
I listened the other night to Captain Ed's web radio cast where he interviewed Gingrich, and I came away with the impression that he really does want to get in--but that he wants to wait until fall because he believes this two-year Presidential campaign business is ridiculous. I hope he does run: I truly think he can be another giant of a President like Ronald Reagan; and never has our country needed such a leader so desparately. Please, Mr. Speaker: this is your calling.
Gingrich is starting an initiative to try and get candidates from both parties to debate frequently--not just with other Primary candidates in their own party, but also against the Opposition party, during the primaries. Gingrich and others from across the aisle like former New York Governor Mario Cuomo are promoting the idea in order to lessen the bitter partisan campaigns of the recent past by encouraging ongoing party-to-party discussion of the issues. Gingrich argues that it does not encourage dialogue and bipartisan solutions to American problems to simply have the parties go to opposite corners and for each party to fan the flames of red-meat partisanship with "their own". The idea is by (occasionally, not every time) getting primary candidates to debate other primary candidates of the other party, the country might experience less fire-breathing partisanship and more real dialogue. Gingrich has already begun this process himself, and yesterday he held a dialogue with liberal New York Senator Chuck Schumer, which will be followed by other dates debating Democrats across the country.
Of course it goes without saying that Gingrich is--quite simply--brilliant, and that a man with the combination of his intellect, his charisma/presence, and his ability to articulate and argue for those ideas would no doubt be a serious danger to all-fluff-and-no-substance candidates like Hillary and Obama in any debate. And no doubt his ongoing debtes with Democrats around the country will be "good practice"... to say the least.
But his personal prowess aside, Gingrich deserves his props for this debate the other party idea. In addition to the points discussed above, this approach would give primary voters a good look at the debating skills of thier favorite candidates up against the party they will run against in the fall--if you will, a sneak preview of possible Presidential debates. I especially like this idea, because it would encourage candidates of both parties to get away from the current practice of showing one "face" to their own party to get the nomination, and then showing another (opposite) "face" in the fall in order to win the general election. Party to party debates during Primary season (or before) would give each party a much more realistic idea of what their Primary candidates really stand for, while hopefully taking some of the bitter negativity out of campaigning. I personally think it is a tremendous idea, and the fact that Gingrich came up with the idea only makes his candidacy that much more attractive.
I listened the other night to Captain Ed's web radio cast where he interviewed Gingrich, and I came away with the impression that he really does want to get in--but that he wants to wait until fall because he believes this two-year Presidential campaign business is ridiculous. I hope he does run: I truly think he can be another giant of a President like Ronald Reagan; and never has our country needed such a leader so desparately. Please, Mr. Speaker: this is your calling.
Labels: Newt Gingrich, Republican, US Politics
Wednesday, January 24, 2007
Now More Than Ever
I've already discussed my being impressed with Mitt Romney; it is hard not to be impressed with him. And if he becomes the nominee, there is no question of him receiving my full support--in every sense of the word. But in my heart of hearts there is just one man--if he would only get in--that would make me immediately break out my checkbook: that man is Newt Gingrich.
And apparently I am not the only one.
Go to his site. Listen to the audio, watch the video and read the speeches. Then ponder what you have seen and heard; just imagine this man debating Hillary Clinton and absolutely devouring her or Barack Obama in front of millions. Imagine this man running with someone like Lieberman or Guliani on the ticket. Imagine him debating any Democrat on the planet with an entire nation watching. It is a blissful thought...
Mr. Speaker: as they say on the commercials: "Just Do It."
And apparently I am not the only one.
Go to his site. Listen to the audio, watch the video and read the speeches. Then ponder what you have seen and heard; just imagine this man debating Hillary Clinton and absolutely devouring her or Barack Obama in front of millions. Imagine this man running with someone like Lieberman or Guliani on the ticket. Imagine him debating any Democrat on the planet with an entire nation watching. It is a blissful thought...
Mr. Speaker: as they say on the commercials: "Just Do It."
Labels: Mitt Romney, Newt Gingrich, Republican, US Politics
