The Gingrich Plan
It is neither helpful nor productive for someone like Newt Gingrich to start comparing President Bush's White House to that of the hapless, feckless, hopeless and weak Jimmy Carter. It only engenders low morale among the Republican base and provides an excuse for the MSM to engage in another round of Bush-bashing stories, which does nothing to help the party as a whole.
So why would he do it? The answer is clear:
The only way to keep the White House in G.O.P. hands, Gingrich said, would be to nominate someone who, in essence, runs against Bush, in the style of Nicolas Sarkozy, the center-right cabinet minister who just won the French Presidency by making his own President, Jacques Chirac, his virtual opponent. Sarkozy is a transforming figure in French politics, Gingrich said, and he suggested that the only Republican who shared Sarkozy’s “transformative” approach to governing was [himself].
I generally like Gingrich, but haven't we heard all this about his "transformative" approach to governing before? It ended up culminating in his resignation in 1998 and a return to business as usual. So far, at least, President Bush isn't the only one who's shown himself to have trouble beating the whole "business as usual" attitude in Washington, D.C.
So why would he do it? The answer is clear:
The only way to keep the White House in G.O.P. hands, Gingrich said, would be to nominate someone who, in essence, runs against Bush, in the style of Nicolas Sarkozy, the center-right cabinet minister who just won the French Presidency by making his own President, Jacques Chirac, his virtual opponent. Sarkozy is a transforming figure in French politics, Gingrich said, and he suggested that the only Republican who shared Sarkozy’s “transformative” approach to governing was [himself].
I generally like Gingrich, but haven't we heard all this about his "transformative" approach to governing before? It ended up culminating in his resignation in 1998 and a return to business as usual. So far, at least, President Bush isn't the only one who's shown himself to have trouble beating the whole "business as usual" attitude in Washington, D.C.
posted by LadybugUSA at 11:03 AM
6 Comments:
I'm very dismayed by Newt's attack on the president. I expect that from Democrats, not someone with the gravitas of a Gingrich. besides, I admire --greatly-- President Bush: He's taken the tough stands and stuck by his guns. He has shown true leadership.
I considered Newt as a candidate I could support. But now not. This untrue comment of his cuts my admiration of his knowledge of history in half: there are 2 numbers to remember vis a vis President Bush: There have been 0 attacks against us in America since 9/11 and the dow is at 13,500. Pretty incredibly amazing. The president gets the bulk of the credit for both those numbers. And the number we associate Jimmy Carter with? "444" --the number of days our people were kept as hostages in Ira, For shame, Mr. Gingrich -- you lost an admirer and supporter of yours by being "cute" with your politics. I guess it's back to Rudy for me.
The problem is that comparing Jimmy Carter to Bush is an insult to Jimmy Carter.
Carter managed to broker a peace between Egypt and Israel that has lasted for 30 odd years. The amount of lives and money that could have been lost had Egypt remained a protagonist is immense.
Bush has not brought any peace to the world at all.
Carter did not invade any nation. The loss of lives in the ill-fated attempt to rescue the Iranian hostages was minimal compared to the Americans who have died in Iraq.
Carter's biggest obstacle were the Democrats in Congress who made life very difficult for him. Compare this to the rubber stamp Republicans since 2001.
I think that what Newt said is what a lot of people feel. There is a frustration within the GOP ranks, especially now that today, President Bush all but called those of us who oppose the "comprehensice immigration bill" scam as not wanting what is best for America. WE DO WANT what is best for America. WE WANT ENFORCEMENT FIRST-everything else second. Why doesn't President Bush agree to stagger the bill, take enforcement for a one to two year period and then address all the other problems with the bill? Or now that there is talk of a troop drawdown in Iraq. After all these past weeks defending the President's approach and calling the Dems the cut and runners. The administration, by not addressing the report of a troop drawdown by denial is basically saying there will be. Does that not give a bad signal to the enemy?
I think that refering to Mr. Bush as Jimmy Carter is harsh. No one should ever be compared to Mr. Carter, a very bad President and worse possible anti-semite. But, we are getting frustrated with where the administration is going. The key to all of this is simple. Bipartisanship is code for giving the other side, the Dems, what they want. Now is not the time to save their bacon. They have enough on their own side.
I think that what Newt can do, and it will not help or hurt him is offer help to the President to get him back with the base so that there is not the feeling of aimlessness that I think Mr. Gingrich was trying to address. Oh, and for Mr. Gingrich, don't say all these things to the New Yorker of all magazines!
Regardless of what Newt said the truth is that our current leadership is leading us into ever more troubled waters. Venturing into Iraq rather than making Afghanistan the showplace of Democracy in the Middle-East along with his absolute and abismal failure in meaningfully dealing with Illegal Immigration may likely ensure that the Democrats will have 80-90 million new members to further pander to with Hillary's unabashedly Marxist Presidency, just as we're required to face China and Russia while battling radical Islam.
OK, so Gingrich compared George W. Bush to president Carter.
A better comparrison would have been one to Richard Nixon, but even here Bush II doesn't come close.
At least Nixon left us the Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act, OSHA, and the Endangered Species Act. And, ultimately, Nixon had the decency to resign from his disgraced administration.
OK, everyone, do you think that George W. Bush would have the humanity, the manliness, to resign from an administration known only for its recklessness and mollycoddle ways
Insane woman who dabbles in fantasy,
The comparison to Nixon really isn't bad in that Nixon wasn't very conservative either. But his disgrace came from the Watergate issue, which wouldn't have been the issue it was had he not covered it up. Bush, on the other hand, hasn't done anything for which he should resign. It's just that your BDS is acting up again.
OSO,
Carter brokered nothing. He got Sadat and Begin the hotel room to talk. He takes credit for what Sadat did. Carter is a liar as well as a worthless president. The best thing he did for America was to lose the second election.
Post a Comment
<< Home