There are certain times you read something, and say Yes, that’s exactly what I was thinking.
And sometimes that thing was said long ago but still applies today, like this article from The Weekly Standard, Why Newt Must Run (h/t HotAir)(emphasis mine):
But just as the Gingrich of November 1995 is different from the one who assumed the speakership, so too the Gingrich of November 1996 could be a far different, far more inspiring public figure. Gingrich may be a lightning rod, but he also embodies the revolution like no one else. He is its most articulate, self-confident, and unapologetic voice, and he burns with conviction that America can and will be a better place because of it. And if he’s sufficiently freed up from the punishing legislative schedule of the last few months, he can rediscover the youthful realization that drove him to dedicate his life to politics in the first place: that at certain critical moments in history, effective leadership is all that stands between a civilization and its collapse.
There are times in life when risking everything is more prudent than protecting what you have. For Gingrich, this could be one of them. And if Gingrich fails to accept the mission, the mission does not go away. The hole in the heart of the Republican revolution remains, waiting for a leader to fill it.
And sometimes the thing was said by someone you didn’t expect, in this case the author was pre-liberal Arianna Huffington.
I also found this passage interesting:
And how can the speaker of the House, who has delivered on the legislative agenda of the revolution more decisively than even his most ardent supporters thought possible, have a 49 percent negative rating? Most important, how can the revolution move forward when Republicans have allowed its opponents to define it?
Contrary to the anti-Newt conservative writers, Newt was effective in delivering a legislative agenda, but much of the subsequent electoral defeats resulted from allowing Democrats and the media to define conservatism in a negative light. Another thing that has not changed.
Update: Byron York really nails it, The insider-outsider divide over Newt Gingrich:
While insiders remember Gingrich’s low points from the 90s, outsiders remember his triumphs. They remember a Gingrich who had the vision to imagine a Republican takeover of the House when no one else could, and the skill to make it happen. And when outsiders think of the two greatest policy achievements of the Clinton years — a balanced budget and welfare reform — they know Gingrich can legitimately claim a lot of credit for both. So what if he was abrupt with colleagues? Or, for that matter, if he was the target of a Democratic-driven ethics attack? As far as the 1990s are concerned, outsiders remember Gingrich’s high points.
DONATE
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
[…] “Precisely because Gingrich is right about the moral crisis the country is facing — millions of lives and entire communities destroyed by drugs, alcohol, gangs, and violence — there is a moral imperative for him to fill the leadership vacuum and address the growing devastation.” Arianna Huffington, Why Newt Must Run, The Weekly Standard, 1995 (h/t Legal Insurrection) […]
Arianna, who wrote that article in 1995 certainly was expressing a conservative point of view.
Yet today, she’s quite the opposite, a good solid Socialist, and not so little at that. Or, perhaps she’s now what she always was, a flaming red opportunist with desires to be an elitist. I do trust that Arianna’s current empire building efforts will continue to melt away; maybe she was the model for the Wicked Witch of the West.
A little noticed item from about a week ago was Newt’s announcement that as president he would be tweeting the American people throughout the day and otherwise using the social media to stay front and center in the American consciousness.
His daily bloviations from his Speaker days were the exact reason he personally squandered the conservative victory of 1994. It was all about Newt, all the time, the persistent implication being that Newt was a world-historical figure of immense significance to mankind.
In reality, his absurd meanderings were sheer pomposity, and Newt was the only one clueless about that. His promise to tweet throughout the day confirms he has not changed.
No doubt, the man understands what Conservatives are thinking, and he is able to articulate that thought process better than anyone, even the sainted Rush.
But he has zero control over his ego, and a delusional grasp of his place in the scheme of things.
I wish Newt were Newt with even half of Reagan’s humility. If that were so, wow … he could be far more significant than he is. But Newt is Newt, a flawed man, as we all are.
Too bad, his flaw is like the supermodel missing her two front teeth. He cannot be taken seriously, nor can he be effective. To the contrary, Newt brought an end to the Conservative vision in the 90’s, and he will conclusively (though inadvertently) end the present Conservative moment, the potential for which is as giant as it is rare.
Tonawanda:
Newt “has zero control over his ego, and a delusional grasp of his place in the scheme of things.”
Sounds to me like you are describing Obama.
Given a choice between Obama’s ego and Newt’s ego – well, that’s an easy one…
This is absolutely true. Also, unlike Newt, who knows what he is talking about, B.O. does not. B.O. has the fabricated “knowledge” of the self-important ideologue.
The problem, as always, is that B.O. will never be held to account, whereas Newt has been and will be. It seems that only Reagan mastered the Republican curse of being held to an unjust and unfair double standard.
I think this is absolutely correct. One must understand that… while Newt was, in some ways, the “Anti-Clinton.” He also worked with Bill to deliver some good economic times. And some key legislation.
The collective consciousness of the votership remembers him in that light. And Bill has recently praised Newt. Common sense would tell the a GOP that wants to win, it should capitalize on that.
Gingrich quits. He quit on his wives, he quit on his constituents, he quit on the conservative movevment and the country. No more Newt.
What’s the alternative? Obama?
Here are the divorce facts, according to Jackie Gingrich Cushman.
As one of The Lost Children of Palin, Newt is the only viable candidate whom I can support at this point. But not enthusiastically. There’s always this nagging doubt in my mind that this man is going to talk, talk, talk up a conservative storm and then at the climactic moment…cut a deal with his liberal friends, magisterially pronouncing that “Politics is the art of the possible,” or something. I can live with his platform all right. I will give him the benefit of the doubt with regard to his checkered personal past–we’re not electing a Pope here. But I don’t really trust him. Of course, I trusted Sarah Palin totally, and she bailed under pressure.
Now we have to go with what we have. Romney is McCain Part Deux. Newt could be a latter-day Churchill, or a total flop. Can he beat Obama? Yes. Then what?
Newt’s resume as a leader in the U. S. House of Reps does not help his quest to the the leader of the ‘free’ world. It is great to be an ideas man, but a leader can have those with that skill on his staff. What a leader must have in the ability to have those with whom he works most closely and those in the public he represents to follow him when events turn sour and tough. Newt’s endorsers so far have not been those who worked most closely when he was Speaker of the House. Those people, as proven today by Sen. Tom Coburn, (R)-OK, saying he’d be hard put to endorse Newt as the Rep nominee for President. Newt’s endorsers in the main are composed of those who don’t have personal experience with Newt’s leadership style.
The lamestream media was able to tar the revolution because the only pro revolution voice wa s Rush. The repub media was one or two establishment east coast RINO publications. There was no blogosphere or Fox news to offset the “politica wisdom” or false claims of “objectivity” and “fair analysis” then widely unchallenged. It was only by 1998 or so that Drudge reprt and Rush were beginning to come to sufficient strength but by then it was too late for Gingrich to benefit.
George Will really unloads on Newt Gingrinch in the Washington Post. I think he wrote it with utmost seriousness, but it’s rather hilarious.
Maybe conservative pundits, and finicky voters, should make peace with a two-term Obama. Give it a rest until the election(s) are over.
Democrats, try as they might, cannot destroy the conservative movement. But Republicans sure can. With Newt as the leader of the Republican party, and with his talents and vices working together, that is the an outcome that should not be discounted. I’d say it will happen as surely as it would have already happened if John McCain had won in 2008.
Senator Tom Coburn wrote in his book Breach of Trust, that Gingrich as Speaker of the House became overly fond of the trappings of power, such that he began to undermine the momentum for fundamental change promised in the Contract With America. Coburn describes how the fervor of the freshmen lawmakers of 1994 quickly put them at odds with Gingrich: “[He] would receive our input, but he rarely took it seriously … We were from the outside and wet behind the ears in terms of politics and we obviously didn’t know as much about history as he did. It would not take long for us to become ‘the conservatives’ to him.” And it did not take long for the Contract with America to fall into the dustbin of history.
With either Gingrich or Romney conservatives will have to push hard to get which ever one of them is in the White House to do the right thing at every turn. Which one will be easier to control? They both embrace the man-made global warming hooey, health care mandates, and government run health care. But Gingrich also supports cap and trade, ethanol subsidies and mandates, and a host of other liberal dogma that no conservative ever would. In addition, he has a history of selling conservatives out every time.
These are dark times indeed if our only choices are Gingrich or Romney.
I suppose we can stamp our feet and demand Palin, or West, or Reagan, and thereby effectively vote our third choice: another four years of Obama.
Who we put into Congress will matter more. For this, Gingrich has the experience. Romney doesn’t. In the “forum” yesterday, he was stringing together memorized buzz phrases to pander to concerns in the polls du jour.
Who we put into Congress will matter more.
Reread Teejaw:
Senator Tom Coburn wrote in his book Breach of Trust, that Gingrich as Speaker of the House became overly fond of the trappings of power, such that he began to undermine the momentum for fundamental change promised in the Contract With America. Coburn describes how the fervor of the freshmen lawmakers of 1994 quickly put them at odds with Gingrich: “[He] would receive our input, but he rarely took it seriously … We were from the outside and wet behind the ears in terms of politics and we obviously didn’t know as much about history as he did. It would not take long for us to become ‘the conservatives’ to him.” And it did not take long for the Contract with America to fall into the dustbin of history.
President Gingrich will work with Democrats to get around a conservative agenda.
To Newt Gingrich distractors, which candidate do you promote? The clutter of comments here leaves one to question which are conservatives and which are liberal trolls…
There can be only one president… I have weighed the candidates and found Newt to be the least wanting.
I, for one, am glad Newt is confident… it is a trait of most competent people.
That often is the problem, and not just with Newt. People, including some prominent conservative commenters, trash everyone, and make the case for no one. You only get to vote for those who are running.
There is no denying one fact: this primary has been stunningly disappointing to Conservatives. As a Buffalo Bills fan, I am used to this heart-breaking circumstance.
Bachmann was thrilling until her wild exaggerations and distortions made her seem not so much a prevaricator as a rookie who did not understand the importance of accuracy. She was and is in over her head.
Cain was thrilling until he showed in various ways he was in over his head. A man who does not know right of return or defined benefit lacks the depth to be taken seriously.
Perry was thrilling in the abstract, then he showed up. He is ripe for caricature as the dumber version of George Bush. Would that this were not true, but it is true. With Bush, the taunts were untrue, with Perry who knows, there is no evidence to the contrary.
Newt has not reigned in his pomposity, despite years of folks trying to tell him about it. His debate performances have been thrilling. There is no doubt he has amazing forensic ability. People who have long paid attention to him can only witness a Gingrich campaign with trepidation, his ego a constant threat to sink everything.
So who to promote as an alternative?
In retrospect, Pawlenty looks really good. Romney is a root canal.
Conservatives will support the Republican nominee. B.O. is a deliberate cypher, but it is fair to say he is a sympathizer of the overlapping Marxist-Islamic criticism of Western Civilization. He is a disaster for our country, whether intended or not. Success to him, whether intended or not, is destruction of our country.
This point in history is a great opportunity for Conservatism. This point in history needs a Thatcher or a Reagan.
We do not have one, and it is not realistic to pretend that we do, or that what is available is anything other than a grave disappointment.
How rich!!
If I were a gamblin’ guy, I’d give 5-2 odds of a Gingrich implosion.
Now, I might be wrong but if not, who is the next person y’awl would support. Keep in mind that the democrat attack apparatus has not even been warmed up regarding Newt’s vulnerability.
What say you?
Anyone who came out of the Clinton arena with all four limbs gets some credit in my book. Newt has been answering the tough questions about his political and personal past, and he doesn’t seem to give a rats that people are asking. That’s half the battle won, IMO. I also love the way he’s been calling out the media and taking the offensive. He’s not playing their game, and it’s working.
I agree.. Newt, who may have his own issues, is not perfect, as no one is, but is so much more conservative than Romney, in so many ways.. And the fact that he knows and understands the U.S. Constitution more than any other politician, especially Romney, let alone Obama, and as someone who is a historian scholar of American History, he understands the American Republic framework and system more than anyone. And even though Bill Clinton, takes the credit for the hard work and achievements of the Republican Congress with Newt as the Speaker, after the 1994 Congressional Republican Revolution victory, which forced Billl Clinton back to the political center , it was Newt who also forced Bill Clinton to sign onto reforming welfare, balancing the Federal Budget, which gave America a fiscal surplus, not a massive unsustainable out of control deficit, like Obama, Pelosi, and Reid have created.. Newt is a fighter for conservative values, principles, and fiscal and financial discipline of the American Tax Payers money..
In addition, Newt’s vast knowledge, expertise, and experience, has given him much wisdom and insight into the very the core the issues and problems we now face.. You cannot fix something, if you do not know what is broken. Newt understands exactly what Obama has broken, and why Obama has broken it, thus is not only the most qualified to be the U.S. President in that sense, but needs to be the US President.
And there is one more bit of Newt policy, that should be mentioned.. His absolute commitment to abolishing, aka, impeaching, those Liberal activist Judges, who blatantly rule against the U.S. Constitution, and the American People, and who especially use foreign laws to adjudicate American cases in a U.S. Courtroom.
Newt Gingrich:
Impeach judges – Crush and Replace the Left – 2012 “Victory or Death!”
We had the Reagan Revolution, that saved America once before.. Now, we must have the Newt Revolution, to save America, once again.
The problem is that all of the debates have been Republicans questioned by hostile Democrats. Just like in ’08 we’re letting the left choose our candidates.
Hence Perry being considered a dummy. I’m a Texan and I can say that he’s no dummy. Neither was Bush, for that matter. While neither of those men are perfect, they both did damned good jobs here, which is hard for a dummy to do.
The question remains, will Newt do a better job than Mitt? I say yes. I’d love for Perry to make a comeback but if he can’t I’ll gladly vote for Newt.
If Republicans nominate Elmer Fudd I’ll vote for him. But I’ll also complain about it.