Former House speaker and possible GOP presidential candidate Newt Gingrich isn’t mincing words in blaming President Bush and White House adviser Karl Rove for the "collapse" of the Republican Party. And he said that the GOP should look to France — France! — for how to resurrect itself.
Gingrich complained that Rove’s 2004 election strategy, which he described as "maniacally dumb," focused too much on appealing to the GOP base. "You can’t be a governing national party and write off entire regions," he told the New Yorker. "All he proved was that the anti-Kerry vote was bigger than the anti-Bush vote."
So what should GOP presidential candidates do? Gingrich advised taking a page from the campaign of new French President Nicolas Sarkozy, who, in effect, ran against his own party leader, former President Jacques Chirac.
"What’s fascinating about Sarkozy is that you have an incumbent cabinet member of a very unpopular 12-year presidency," Gingrich said, "who over the last three years became the clear advocate of fundamental change."
Posted by Phillip Brownlee
Registered?
Commenting on WE Blog now requires you to be a Kansas.com member. Use the links above to register, if you haven't already, or to log in.Contact us
Follow us
Daily Archives
-
Recent Comments
- DorisKing on Open thread 11/22
- Chas on Open thread 11/22
- george on Health care reform would save state money
- satatom on Open thread 11/22
- satatom on Open thread 11/22
- Politico on So they said
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/22
- JWink on Health care reform would save state money
- Politico on Health care reform would save state money
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/22
46 Comments
How about this, for all politicians. Just state three things honestly and truthfully1) what you believe on the issues2) what your priorities and intentions are3)how you intend to accomplish them
Positioning yourself in opposiiton to or in agreement with either people or parties is just that, positioning. forget about it
I love Newt.
I just don’t think he can win. It would be nice though.
Newt – so much for morality in office…….
Ah, Newt. Still seeking a return to relevance….
Pot…..this is the kettle calling
Newt … the ideal of family values … cheating on his wife while preaching morality to the rest of us.
Have to hand it to him, even though I might rather not, Newt is spot on with respect to Bush/Rove.
“maniacally dumb”
Love that.
What’s amusing is that this weekend Newt was called the Conservative choice of the current list of potential candidates…
Lets think about this for a min, Newt, the guy who was having an affair while impeaching Clinton… Yea…
Yea Tony, but he sure had Chutzpa. Served his wife with divorce papers while she was in the hospital!
What a guy!
Can’t quite decide what to make of Newt. There are some things I don’t like about him, things that are personal and should be left out of a campaign. I’m getting pretty sick of things long past coming back to haunt candidates. We all make mistakes. Is there anybody here who hasn’t done something stupid in their life?
“… cheating on his wife while preaching morality to the rest of us”
I do have a problem with the hypocrisy thing.
“things that are personal and should be left out of a campaign.”
Normally I would agree with you. Unfortunately the centerpiece of Newt’s time in Congress was PRECISELY the opposite. HE set the precedent of making this a centerpiece of his campaign.
Newt–
How’s that “term limit” thingy from your Contract with America working out?
Heh, yeah, not so good . . .
Ben, that’s an even better reason why personal past should be left out of politics. But I’m not a Newt supporter. My problem is, too many good people can’t enter politics because of some past foible. What does that leave? If you’re not the second coming of Christ, you’re not fit to be president. Is that what we really want? I’m sick of things like McCain’s illegitimate black child and Clinton’s blowjob and Hyde’s affair and the swiftboating of Kerry, ad nausium.
But that’s just my humble opinion.
Now Capn has a legit response. That’s something a politician should answer for. But I’m sure it’s a matter of, Newt was for it before he was against it.
XXX – I agree. However, in dealing with Newt I make an exception. Strictly out of deference to HIS wishes of course.
The only hoe the Republicans have is in Hillary Clinton and I doubt they will even beat her!
Oops- that was a BAD typo above! I mean HOPE
OMG! Kev said “hoe”!
Fire him from his radio show!!!!
You all like to condemn Newt for hypocracy dealing with clinton. There are some inconvenient facts in the way, of course. The media has ignored and washed over these facts for so long, however, that millions of Americans truly believe in a lie.
I’d point out that Clinton’s impeachment had 1) nothing to do with the BJ in the White House, and 2) nothing to do with whether or not he had an affair.
He was impeached for lieing under oath during a deposition involving a civil matter that predated his arrival in the White House.
I know some of you are fact challenged; they simply get in the way of a good tarring. But there it is.
BTW – the allegation that Newt “served the divorce papers in the hospital” was always a lie; but the kind the media likes best, so it struck a nerve.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newt_Gingrich
Of course, millions of Americans also believe in the shooter on the grassy knoll and the fake moon landing, too, so I guess I should consider the source.
You want to attack Newt; there’s certainly plenty there to use. But get the facts right.
People that cite Wikipedia floor me. Don’t you know that Wikipedia isn’t even allowed as a reference in grade school? Because it is an open source website anyone can edit or add content to the “articles” so it often has highly inaccurate or made up information.
Sheesh people!!!!!
So, GMC you are okay with the way the GOP handled the impeachment fiasco with Bill Clinton? I DO recall the moral outrage that Gingrich exhibited during the Monica issue, claiming that Clinton was morally unfit to serve. I also recall Dan Burton (R – Watermelon) calling Clinton a scumbag. I further recall Livingston insisting that Clinton should resign, as Livingston was resigning after being exposed for having multiple affairs.
At the time of impeachment, most of the “outrage” was focused on the affair. It was when the attempt to remove Clinton from office failed and Republican infidelities were exposed, that the GOP began it’s CYA campaign of insisting that it had “nothing to do with” the infidelity.
And, by the way, why did Gingrich state that he had set himself up for a charge of hypocrisy during impeachment, if his own affair had come to light?
From the reference in GMC’s Wiki article:
http://www.salon.com/news/1998/08/28news.html
“The most notorious incident in Gingrich’s marriage — first reported by David Osborne in Mother Jones magazine in 1984 — was when he cornered Jackie in her hospital room where she was recovering from uterine cancer surgery and insisted on discussing the terms of the divorce he was seeking.Shortly after that infamous encounter, Gingrich refused to pay his alimony and child-support payments. The First Baptist Church in his hometown had to take up a collection to support the family Gingrich had deserted.”
What a guy!
With Brownlee’s post about Gingrich, you potentially have a lot to kick around. You could talk, for example, about the richness of Newt’s advice to run against Rove’s ‘04 strategy, which arguably only sought to magnify the moral high ground effluvium that the former Speaker had promoted in previous campaigns. You could also do a variation on the topic and agree with “XXX” and Ben at the same time because, finally, how the hell do you let Gingrich off the hook when you know the kind of games he played in the past, all the while recognizing, just as “XXX” does, that half the talented people in this country can’t run for office if they want to, if only because, at one time or another, they shot too much tequila at some ridiculous bachelor party back in the 80’s and an old rival made a home movie.
At this point, of course, the major candidates get it out in the open right from the start. George W. copped to the booze problem and people let it go, at least in part because he believes in Christianity. It’s hard to tell how a recovering boozer would play if the guy just said he quit and that was that. What would happen if a candidate went on stage at some debate and admitted that half the time he truly can’t decide if God exists? A lot of people kick it around in private. You start at a young age with the eternal questions. It’s part of life. Yet a candidate is called upon to walk on stage and somehow have a mindset, a couple of sentences at the ready to box it up. “I believe this or I believe that.” Done and done. Maybe it’s that simple and maybe it’s not. It’s possible to be a person of faith and to question that faith from time to time. Priests have written books on the subject. Would a presidential candidate admit it though? Probably not. In America, it’s safer to tell the story.
Now take Obama. We know he snorted coke a long time ago, and we know he still smokes and he’s trying to quit. Can you get elected president as a smoker? It’s a shallow world we live in if Americans hold it against him: Churchill smoked cigars on a daily basis and Hitler probably never torched a thing. Rest assured, however, that if Obama makes the finals, the shallow smoking thing will be a dilemma.
How about Rudy? People are having doubts about his family life, as if they know enough about it to make a judgment. In a separate post, Brownlee referenced a Dickens novel. What do you learn from Dickens? Well, you learn plenty, but you certainly get the message in full that there is much more to people than meets the eye. The inner life is a mystery. Great people sometimes emerge from early mistakes. They have the problem of being blind to their own defects but make progress and gain awareness as life goes on.
What’s this mean for Gingrich? Anybody’s guess. Fred Thompson has momentum at the moment. It looks like he can walk between the wings of the Republican Party.
Yet we haven’t even launched the Kentucky Derby. People are still trying to find a seat. The track looks muddy and it’s raining.
Good points TRT. Consider Giuliana as you noted. In his case, since he has NOT played ‘holier then thou’ I consider his personal issues to be private. Had Newt not reveled so much in the Clinton witch-hunt I might give him a pass too.
It’s kind of like Rush calling drug addicts “dregs of humanity.” Well, now that he is one of them then that makes him a self-described “dreg”
WS
Didn’t say or imply that. That wasn’t the point. You’re changing the subject again.
Just get the facts right.
I was asking an honest question GMC – are okay with the way the GOP handled the impeachment fiasco with Bill Clinton?
Fair enough?
No discussion of Gingrich is possible WITHOUT discussing impeachment. He can’t just sweep it under the rug. He pressed for it, Burton’s subcommittee issued over 1,000 subpoenas, the GOP House of Representatives make it a central part of their agenda in 1998.
Gingrich’s role in the proceedings are part and parcel of who he is.
By some measure, if he gets the nomination of his party for president, don’t you think somebody might bring it up?
The bummer is that Newt is very bright and, I think, would bring a lot to the table.
Sort of like Nixon – he was potentially a great prsident; unfortunately he allowed Watergate to consume him.
1) He will not get the nomination, though he’s arguably intellectually the brightest guy out there. Too much baggage, too many negatives, real or imagined.
2) That’s a two part question. a) is perjury an impeachable offense? Yes. Was THIS perjury one which should have been impeachable? No.
But it’s politics. What else is new?
Newt was a lot of the problem the Repubs are having right now. Sure, if you want to look to France, by all means do so. Their conservative is liberal by USA standards.
As low as Bush is- and he is more evil than the meanest viper- Newt cannot say anything after the way he ran around on and then desserted his wife while she was sick with cancer in the hospital. That puts Newt in the same league with Satan himself. He is the worst of the worst. Worse than even most of the rest of the child raping and wife abusing Republicans.
“But it’s politics. What else is new?”
Both impeachments of US Presidents in our history were for partisan, political reasons. That is not what was intended by the Founding Fathers. The GOP conducted a $75 million witch hunt against Clinton, looking for ANY reason to impeach him and remove him from office.
We will never let the architects of that witch hunt pretend that it did not happen. We will never forget that the GOP impeached a president with a 67% approval rating, but gives a pass to one with a 28% rating.
I know this is kinda off topic, but I’m so tired of hearing of approval ratings. I DON”T CARE!!!
1) The “approval” ratings are driven by pollsters, who get any answer they like. Liars, damn liars, and statisticians.
2) Any policymaker, whether a President, a member of Congress, or a local DA, who’s decisions are driven by polls or what is popular is not fit to hold office.
Even a hardcore, dyed in the wool, lifetime dues paying Republican would have to admit that Bill Clinton was far more popular with the American public in 1998 than George W Bush is today.
Opinion polls or not.
Again, WS, true enough. But that is the last bit of consideration that should play a part in decision-making. Even an impeachment.
ESPECIALLY an impeachment.
The desire to impeach William J Clinton was strictly partisan. The GOP turned a mad dog prosecutor loose with a huge budget with marching orders to find something, anything to use against Clinton so that he could be removed from office by Gingrich and his minions.
You may remember that the original charge that Starr was to investigate was the Whitewater land deal. After Clinton left office, Starr’s successor issued his report indicating that there was no wrongdoing by the Clintons regarding the deal.
We will never forget the impeachment of Clinton and we will never forgive the GOP. You had better believe that if McCain gets the GOP nomination, one of the big questions he will have to answer is why he voted for conviction when Clinton was impeached.
We will not forget the partisan rancor that the GOP turned loose on America.
I agree with much of that post, WS. But “partisan rancor” takes two. And there are no innocent parties here.
GMC – I do not recall a scorched earth campaign by the Democrats against the GOP before Newt. In fact, because Clinton came from the ‘right’ within the democratic Party I recall he reached across the aisle to forge coalitions.
Refresh my memory if Clinton had been carrying out ‘partisan rancor’ against the GOP.
Few will remember that Gingrich was the primary founder of the full contact style of political discourse. He advised his followers to refer to Democrats as “twisted, bizarre and un-American.”
That was the style he developed – not Bill Clinton. Clinton knew how to play political hardball, but Gingrich ratcheted it up several notches.
Impeachment was Gingrich’s finest moment, by his definition.
Unfortunately for him and the GOP, there will be many Democrats that will not forget it.
Newt Gingrich has ensured that a great number of Americans will never vote Republican in their lifetimes.
Today’s posts about Gingrich may reveal something about where this election is headed and may also tell us something about the problem Gingrich has if he tries to apply the Sarkozy strategy. Let me start by conceding that I don’t follow French politics that close, so I might end up being wrong about this. In any case, Sarkozy may have succeeded where Gingrich would fail if the Frenchman did not have a lot of baggage from previous political battles to drag him down. In staking out his territory, therefore, he appeared to be a fresh voice. Gingrich, on the other hand, try as he might, has the same problem as Hillary Clinton inasmuch as you can’t think of him without remembering the late 90’s. Not all of that was bad, of course, but every time you think of Newt or Al Gore or Hillary Clinton or Bill Clinton, you are transported back to a time that you may not want to revisit just yet. I know I don’t. I actually don’t have all that much against Gingrich or Senator Clinton. However, I simply don’t like to go backwards. I want a fresh perspective on things and I want America to go forward. Much can still be done for the good of the country, and both political parties and everyone in-between have something to contribute to that discussion. Politicians like Gingrich and Clinton, for me at least, do not bode well for heading off in a new direction. The imagery is altogether toward the past instead. We shall see if other voters agree. If the Republicans put up Gingrich and the Democrats put up Clinton, then it might be said that voters want to rework the old battles. I hope to see fresh vision and politicians who set our sights on what’s ahead.
Very true WSC. It used to be that there was a “Freshman Caucus” in the House – all the newbies of BOTH parties as they found their way around. It was a bi-partisan thing. Newt eliminated that. He wanted to indoctrinate new Congressmen immediately; he wanted no bi-partisanship. We continue to reap the results of that today.
WS
On the contrary- the Clinton campaign was notable for hitting hard, and immediately, always in attack mode. And the Clinton White House set a model that unfortunately may become the rule: the endless political/campaign mode, and the inevitable melding of campaigning with governing.
Very few things are enduring in this world. Politics is. And by the standard of 100-150 years ago, we are in a period of peaceful bliss. Campaigns were much dirtier then.
The Who were exactly right: Meet the new boss, same as the old boss. It has always been so.
No, the Dems were less rancorous because they had become used to being in the majority, relying on machine politics and entrenched constituencies. With the real competetiveness of the collapse of that seemingly endless majority coalition came the rancor of the campaign, when both parties saw each election as key to control of Congress.
Neither party wears halos here.
“On the contrary- the Clinton campaign was notable for hitting hard, and immediately, always in attack mode. And the Clinton White House set a model that unfortunately may become the rule: the endless political/campaign mode, and the inevitable melding of campaigning with governing.”
Love this. When are you dumb butts going to quit blaming Bush’s blunders on Clinton. This is one very sad repeating theme of your ridiculous party. I have had enough. America has had enough.
Please keep it up. You will be thrown in the dust bin of persona non-gratas forever.
Hallelujah – is all I have to say.
“Happy days are here again, the sky above is clear again, happy days are here again…”
Why am I not surprised that Nathan loves Newt? The so-calledChrisitan Conservatives all loved Newt because he was their rabid junkyard dog (with all the morals of such a dog).
This group of so-called Godly people worship Newt even though Newt was one of the major characters in the Contract ON America which has brought us the dirtiest politics as we know politics today. Newt was one of the first Republicans that called others opposing him ‘unpatriotic’ and ‘unAmerican’. Now where have we seen this strategy played out before – oh yeah, Bush and Company also play that game.
Newt’s biggest feat was brainwashing the so-called Christian Conservatives into his political scheme and somehow try to protray the GOP party as the party of God.
If this was not so tragic, I’d have to laugh. God gets the blame for alot of stupid things Newt has done.
Gingrich: Very smart guy, fun to listen to – shouldn’t hold office imo.
No blame, Steven, just an observation. Put down the partisan hat and step back.