Break now or forever lose November 2008
Republican presidential candidates need to make a “clean break” from President George W. Bush and the U.S. government or they will lose in November 2008…
Interesting quote. Will the Republican presidential candidates listen? Newt Gingrich says they better and soon:
Gingrich: Republicans need “clean break” from Bush
By Steve Holland
Fri Sep 14, 1:03 PM ETWASHINGTON (Reuters) – Republican presidential candidates need to make a “clean break” from President George W. Bush and the U.S. government or they will lose in November 2008, a veteran Republican leader said on Friday.
“If you don’t represent real change, you just gave away the 2008 election,” said former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, who led the Republican takeover of the House of Representatives in 1994 and now is flirting with a White House run.
Gingrich cited the Iraq war, the failed federal response to Hurricane Katrina two years ago and the inability to control U.S. borders and illegal immigration as evidence of a need for a complete overhaul of the U.S. system of governing.
“Now that may or may not make the White House happy. But I think that’s the whole point about making a clean break,” Gingrich told a group of reporters over breakfast.
He added: “I believe for any Republican to win in 2008 they have to … offer a dramatic, bold change. If we nominate somebody who has not done that, they get to be the nominee but there is very, very little likelihood that they can win.”
Newt is speaking my kind language. Dramatic, bold change! But this current crop of Republican presidential candidates (with the minor exception of Ron Paul) seems incapable of presenting dramatic and bold change. Don’t they understand President Bush is unpopular? He isn’t well-liked by large segments of the American populace and has an abysmal approval rating. What advantage do they think they are getting by being on President Bush’s “good side”?
The Democratic presidential candidates are playing off of this unabashedly. They see the low approval ratings of President Bush and chart an opposite course at high velocity. Very simple. Makes much sense. And has them in the driver’s seat in winning the presidency of 2008. So what’s wrong with Giuliani, Thompson, Romney, McCain, etc? Can’t they follow the simple and sensible plan that Newt Gingrich has laid out? If this is about loyalty, I quote the late Donald T. Regan, former Chief Of Staff during the Reagan Administration:
You’ve got to give loyalty down, if you want loyalty up.
And President Bush as been throwing down crabapples to his fellow Republicans for awhile now.
opinions powered by SendLove.to
14 Responses to “Break now or forever lose November 2008”
Gingrich may talk up a great game of change. But his first suggestion to regain power after the GOP lost Congress was to reach across the isle to Democrat evangelicals. Never mind the GOP’s plunge into incompetence, unlimited government, and corruption is directly related to it’s association with evangelicals.
He also ushered in the kind of bitter partisanship that Americans are so frustrated with, when his party reclaimed the majority back in 1994. Under Speaker Gingrich, time honored traditions in the House gave way to totally cutting off the opposition party from power. Votes that were supposed to be cut off after 15 minutes were kept open longer in order to strongarm any holdouts, and Republicans were discouraged from fraternizing with the enemy.
His Contract with America gave conservatives a voice, but did so by doing away with bipartisan compromise and consensus.
Hard to believe it now, but in the Reagan years, Tip O’ Neill and Reagan were friends and golfing partners when business hours were over.
The most amusing thing about Gingrich is that he wants Republicans to kick Bush to the curb because of a disasterous war, but it was Gingrich who helped Rumsfeld come up with the war plan over at DOD.
He is long on wind and ego but short on loyalty and scruples, lol.
Tyrone:
Real change means dumping both the D’s and R’s and going w 3rd, 4th, and 5th parties.
Will you back up your words w actions?
“this current crop of Republican presidential candidates (with the minor exception of Ron Paul) seems incapable of presenting dramatic and bold change” This seems the understatement of the year! Ron Paul stands for all that is good about America- which used to proclaim itself “leader of the free world”. It is time for Republicans to wake up to the fact that Ron Paul offers the boldest and most realistic path for winning in 2008.
cosmoetica,
I’m a registered independent that has never voted Democratic or Republican in the presidential elections. I don’t care for any of the Big Two. And that allows me a somewhat objective view. I call it as I see it. The Republicans are failing.
How about not only breaking up with Bush, but not being moron sheep at the same time. About caring more about fiscal responsibility and small gov’t instead of cronyism and coughing up tax breaks for the extremely rich and oil companies making billions and billions.
Seriously, if there is anything I’ve noticed in politics, its that the people LOVE republicans no matter how slimy they get. Everytime I think they as a party have basically shown how quick they are to hand over the common man to Big Business et al… come election time they are still in office. The people want to give the GOP a shot. If just one of them would show up, be serious about getting us off oil, stop seeming like the gov’t gets to legislate morality, making our schools better and curb some of the rampant bribery(maybe by actually doing so) they could still pull off a win in ’08.
They won’t, because its going to take another election cycle for them to get out from under the lessons taught them by the Bush administration. Loyalty to the ideology thats tanked the US for the last 6 years is not going to win them anything. They need to not just disassociate themsevles from Bush, but his entire agenda.
Sam,
Have your forgotten how fast the Democrats are willing to hand over the common man to Big Government.
Of course, the Republians will quickly be out of business. Demographics changes in the U.S. were going to cause it no matter what but the incompetence of the Bush Administration just cause it to happen faster.
The real question is what will the U.S. be like as a one party state after the republicans go away.
SD- What’s the difference? We have had a much bigger growth in government under a Republican borrow-and-spend president than under Democrat Bill Clinton whose economic policies were praised by Alan Greenspan for their fiscal responsibility. At least Democrats want to pay for social justice programs instead of no bid contracts with huge political donors and a never-ending war.
krit,
Do you think that Presiden Clinton’s spending habit would have been a little different if he had not spent the last six years with Republicans controlling Congress?
Actually, the Clinton Administration is a good advertisement for hands off government. The government started no new economic program for six years and the economy prospered.
No, I don’t think he would have been that much different. Republicans think every Democrat is a tax and spender, but some Democrats are fiscal conservatives, just like some Republicans are borrow and spenders. Greenspan praised Clinton in his new book because Clinton was a fiscal conservative, and was able to balance the budget, leaving a large surplus.
If the Republicans alone were to be credited for sound fiscal policy in the ’90′s, wouldn’t they have insisted that Bush maintain a balanced budget after 2001?
krit,
The only reason tha President Clinton was fiscally conservative is his inability to start any new programs. If you would have still had a Democratic controlled Congress, new entitlement programs would have been created while welfare reform would not have been passed.
The Clinton budget surplused was caused by the lack of government expanion along with the dot.com bubble. The Clinton administration was running deficits but January 2001 because the dotcom bubble had burst. Besides, he only hit his budget number in the last two years of the presidency and were due as much to the Republicans no wanting to give Clinton credit for anything.
Compare that to the coming Clinton Adminstration with Pelosi and Reid being incharge of the budget process. Increased spending for healthcare, education, entitlements, etc will drive the deficits up
If you go read Bob Woodward’s book “The Agenda’ you will see that Clinton did not have a clue.
SD- According to Alan Greenspan, Clinton did have a clue, and helped to actively create the surplus and the balanced budget towards the end of his second term.
It was Bush and his entitlement programs that turned the surplus into a deficit, along with the GOP’s lack of fiscal responsibility. I remember the Republicans were saying that deficits don’t matter. Remember the deficit was larger under their leadership than it has been under Reid and Pelosi, who wanted Pay-go. Bush only started using the veto after the Democrats took over so that he could appear to be fiscally responsible- but its a real joke, as he never vetoed bloated Republican budgets btwn 2001 and 2006.
krit,
Please describe one program that President Clinton did without the aid of the Republicans in Congress that lowered the annual budget deficit.
The budget surpluses were over before the end of the Clinton Admnistration. However, that was due to an economic down turn. However, Al Gore and President Bush was too stupid to realize it.
Yes, the Republicans from 2000 to 2006 failed to act like conservatives and that is why they are not out of office with no good future prospects.
Yet, if you look at the proposals for the current Democratic candidates for Presidents, they are all proposing budget busting programs that will require massive tax increse just to keep the annual deficits where they are now. If fiscal conservatism was imporant, John Edwards would not be getting any support.
SD- Pls provide a link to back up your assertion that the surplus disappeared before 2001. All the current candidates have to do is end the Iraq War and repeal the tax cuts for the wealthy to generate revenue for the programs they are proposing. Pelosi at least wanted Paygo, which is more than I can say for the GOP. They have totally lost their credibility in the area of fiscal responsibility.