He observes the dropping confidence of the public in the GOP and suggests policy initiatives that might connect with enough voters to head off some election loses. Part of his alarm may be that once the Democrats get control of government and implement improvements to Health Care, Energy, Immigration, etc it may solidify middle class loyalty for a very long time.
I agree with the intention of some of his proposals and I hope that a Democratically controlled Congress moves most of them forward.
Late last week, Newt Gingrich delivered a curious, under-reported speech at the American Enterprise Institute. He called it, “Answering the Obama Challenge”, and it was framed as a response to Barack Obama’s historic speech about race. (Video and transcript available here. My emphasis.)
Segregation was a horrible institution imposed by force by the state. It ruined the lives of people, it crippled their futures, it was a terrible injustice, and it is totally authentic to be angry about it. As Senator Obama notes,
the legalized discrimination—where blacks were prevented, often through violence, from owning property, or loans were not granted to African-American business owners, or black homeowners could not access FHA mortgages, or blacks were excluded from unions, or the police force, or fire departments—meant that black families could not amass any meaningful wealth to bequeath to future generations.
Anyone who thinks that there was not this destructive impact is simply not in touch with the reality of American history for African-Americans.
It’s been a very long time since I’ve heard a high-level conservative discuss America’s social and economic disasters in terms other than condemnation for the people suffering them. Unfortunately, it’s really hard to reconcile this Newt Gingrich with the one who, 9 days before, called Obama’s speech “infuriating”.
Almost a year ago, the Crystal Ball took a first crack at listing the vice presidential possibilities in both parties (LINK). The list has held up surprisingly well. But the justifications for various candidacies have changed, and now that we know John McCain will make the choice, it’s time for reconsideration. (We’ll await the unofficial crowning of the Democratic nominee to play this game on the Democratic side, unless Democrats keep the game tied through the spring. Our discipline can only last so long.)
Let’s start by revising and extending our earlier remarks, and asking the most important question. Ideally, what does a presidential candidate need in a VP ticket-mate? Here are the most important elements, and a second-banana nominee ought to meet most of these criteria:
This is a Guest Voice column by Michael Reagan, Ronald Reagan’s oldest son, who is also a popular radio talk show host. Guest Voice columns do not necessarily reflect the opinion of The Moderate Voice or its writers.
Newt: A GOP Dark Horse?
Making Sense, by Michael Reagan
Fred Thompson’s gone. Duncan Hunter’s gone. All these people are gone. Huckabee could become Huckabeen — gone by next Tuesday. So could Rudy after next’s Tuesday’s Florida primary.
All of a sudden you’ve got this Republican primary coming down to McCain, Romney and Ron Paul. With all this uncertainty, just where can a conservative go? All of a sudden radio talk show hosts, who reflect the opinions of grass-roots conservative voters, are all over the lot hammering on Rudy, hammering on Romney, hammering on McCain and hammering on Paul.
Listening to them you get an idea who they want or don’t want. They don’t like McCain. Most probably they support either Huckabee or Romney. Although they think Rudy is gone, he could come back if he wins in Florida next Tuesday.
If Huckabee is finished, I think they go to Romney, who is somewhat more conservative than the rest. At any rate, conservatives could be faced with backing either McCain, or Romney, or Huckabee or even Rudy.
Or they could end up backing none of them.
Who, then, could conservatives end up backing? Well, who recently has come out with a new book? Who’s doing all the shows talking about his new book? Read the rest of this entry »
December 11th, 2007 by SHAUN MULLEN, TMV Columnist
Norman Podhoretz, John Bolton and Newt Gingrich are leading the charge in asserting that the National Intelligence Estimate that concludes Iran dismantled its nuclear weapons program in 2003 is misleading and damaging to the national interest. The report sure was a shocker, but do these most serious charges hold water?
Neocon pilgrim and Rudy Giuliani foreign policy advisor Podhoretz and former U.N. ambassador Bolton are horse’s backsides of the first water, so we’ll put their yammering aside. But Republican conservative political guru Gingrich, who is nobody’s fool but occasionally his own, is usually worth listening to.
This is what Gingrich had to say on ABC’s This Week about the report:
“What you have is a release which, first of all, could not have been written to be more damaging to the Bush administration than it was. And the three people who wrote it are all three former State Department employees . . . they’re all three people who dislike what Bush is doing. I think they deliberately undermined the administration. I think this is the equivalent of a coup d’etat by the bureaucracy. If you actually read what they said . . . even the unclassified version doesn’t say what the front, what the headline said. The unclassified version says that there’s a big civilian program, they have at least 3,000 centrifuges already working — and 3,000’s enough to produce one bomb a year. They have a clear commitment to get nuclear weapons; there’s no evidence they’re going to give up that commitment. What the report technically said was that there was one particular program that was secret that we were certain was ongoing, we’ve now had a defector, that’s my guess, and the defector’s told them this, and my question is: How do we know that defector’s not a plant?”
Let’s break down these thoughts point by point.
*The estimate could not have been more damaging to the Bush administration and was intentionally so.
It is difficult to believe that there has not been more squawking, including the usual well-placed leaks from inside the White House, if this charge had real merit. Besides which, it’s yet another example of conservatives staking out a policy position and then automatically disagreeing with, ignoring or hiding anything that goes against that policy, which has been a signature of the Bush administration.
*Iran still has a big civilian nuclear program capable of producing a bomb a year.
No argument here. But we are led to believe by administration insiders that release of the NIE was held up because skeptics insisted that fresh evidence that the weapons program had indeed been dismantled — if not merely put on hold – be obtained. It was and confirmed the original assessment.
*How do we know that Gingrich’s alleged defector is not a plant?
We certainly don’t know that. But it beggars belief that an estimate based on the work of the CIA, DIA, FBI and NSA, among other agencies known for their independence and readiness to fight turf battles, came down to the say of one defector/plant and not the unanimous judgment of all those agencies based on multiple sources.
November 15th, 2007 by DR. CLARISSA PINKOLA ESTÉS, TMV Columnist
The story as it came down on air and on TV was this: Old woman said, How do we beat the bit–? McCain laughed.
The actual story is different.
And you can see the clip (several more are on YouTube) and other persons’ ideas about what should and should not have happened here at Outside the Beltway
Also here at Wonkette
And, a transcript of the verbatim ‘after’ discussion of the incident on CNN in which we see how a moment in a candidate’s life is rewoven by some.
As an analyst of photos, film footage, and written documents for attorneys and judges, I looked at the recent Senator McCain film clip during which an older woman ’supporter’ apparently t-boned him by asking McCain, “How do we beat the bit–?” supposedly referring not only to Senator Clinton, but also using a now-hackneyed piece of pop screed that’s been circulating on the internet for weeks, and has gone to ink on t-shirts and mugs as well.
Senator McCain does laugh. But not then, and not at the woman’s remark. Here is what actually happened.
Watching the film, you see he goes into the Q& A with a furrowed forehead and a slight smile on his face to begin with. Then comes the older woman and her question, “How do we beat… et al,” which bears down hard on the word ‘do.’ Her theatrical tone and body posture make it seem that the question was practiced / pre-planned if even a few moments before, by the woman. It was spoken with no hesitation, with a kind of arch tone.
There is a beat, then the audience laughs, but McCain is not laughing. You see that McCain seems a bit taken aback. Two of the indicators: He looks down at the ground several times. He blinks several times in short duration then… often the cue that a person is trying to focus or comprehend what was just said, sometimes asking themselves, ‘Did I just hear what I thought I heard? Perhaps too, ‘Oh man, how am I going to respond to this in way that will do no harm?’
Also, for many persons, blinking is like clearing the hard drive, trying to reset one’s mind, to regroup and redefine what just occurred. The Senator next said, “May I give the translation….?” meaning he would not repeat the vulgarity. He would reframe the question. He did what all experienced speakers do: he took the part of the question he could answer and answered it. When he said ‘excellent question’ he was referring to how does one beat Hillary in a presidential election.
I am not interested in being an apologist for any politician’s bad behavior. But, this wasn’t bad behavior on McCain’s part. His response veered decidedly toward the respectful, even gallant, that is, not calling out the woman for her behavior.
Next in the clip, a man not on camera, called out with jocularity that he thought the woman’s question was really referring to the man’s ex-wife, at which Senator McCain finally does laugh.
He next puts his hand over his face as though again, trying to clear his mind. This hand gesture is one we make when we are trapped in a social situation, for instance. It can signal either ‘get me out of here,’ or even a kind of social prayer, such as “Please dear God, don’t let anyone else say anything else in this vein.”
Why was I so excited? Me — a liberal, a Democrat, temperamentally moderate, the embodiment of all that is anathema to Newt. What had me so turned on to him, to his prospective candidacy?
Well, allow me, briefly, to look back through the mists of time, back to some of the Newt-related posts I’ve written over at my place, way back when, well in the past. The explanation lies there, somewhere.
Sure, there’s Tancredo (crazy on immigration), Brownback (crazy on abortion), Romney (crazy clean image) McCain (crazy for war), Giuliani, (just plain crazy), and so on, but there’s always room for more craziness on the Republican side. Remember back in ‘00, for example, when Bauer and Keyes were running and Bush was widely seen as the class clown? Good times.
Gingrich would bring to the show not only his massive and shameless ego but some genuine partisan zeal, unironic self-righteousness, ugly arrogance, and a whole lot of hypocrisy and personal baggage. Plus, he’s proven his dangerous idiocy time and time again.
I think an apologist for the Confederacy is just what the GOP needs, and it’d be sincerely edifying to have him defend his linguistic bigotry, not to mention his understanding of the word “ghetto,” on the national stage. Oh, and he’d be the James Dobson candidate — he has already confessed his sins to that evangelical maniac and, “mistakes” and all, he could very well turn out to be the darling of the religious right.
Yes, this is sounding better and better.
Run, Newt, run!
But… no. It is not to be. No runnng. Nor for Newt.
Which means that all we have to look forward to is more of Newt’s man-crush on Fred Thompson, so common to so many on the GOP side.
That — and more of the same from the ever-so-crazy bunch seeking the GOP nomination: Giuliani, Romney, McCain, Huckabee (fundamentally crazy), Keyes (utterly insane), and, yes, Freddie T. and his on-screen personae (delusionally crazy).
Yes, good times. But they could have been so much better.
When he announces tomorrow, the former Senator/actor will start with a clean slate in the hoof-in-mouth department. His Republican opponents have had six months to say stupid things, and they have made the most of them.
Rudy Giuliani had to back off telling Barbara Walters that his wife would attend cabinet meetings and, more recently, his claim to have spent more time at 9/11 Ground Zero than the firefighters.
Mitt Romney has been so busy that Ana Marie Cox on her Time blog had to expand his Top Ten Gaffes to eleven, including the easily disproved claim to have been a hunter all his life, attributing a Castro slogan to Free-Cuba fighters in front of an audience of them, mis-stating French marriage laws, and making an admiring statement about Hitler’s energy policy, among so many others.
If Newt Gingrich decides to run, the floodgates of flubs would overflow.
But Thompson has the potential to catch up. He will no doubt ace his Jay Leno interview this week, but when he has to start defending his positions and his resume, Thompson’s tendency to be casual about such subjects as invading Iran is sure to emerge…
August 17th, 2007 by JOE GANDELMAN, Editor-In-Chief
Is it through reforms passed by Congress? Or is that naive? Is that the equivalent of having Sylvester the cat babysit Tweety bird?
Is the best way via reforming politics by changing campaign rules WITHOUT Congress getting involved?
Walking Think Tank’s idea is the latter. The post is a MUST READ (even for those who already don’t like the idea) but we won’t quote much of it here because it would take everything too much out of context.
So here’s the beginning and the ending of this intriguing, thoughtful post:
Al Gore, Mike Bloomberg and Newt Gingrich may come from different parts of the political spectrum, but their potential candidacies all share a common rationale: our political system is failing to address the enormous challenges we face as a nation.
Gore has fended off calls to run for president by describing himself as a “recovering politician,†but that’s exactly why he should run – as a public service to help our political process recover and elevate our democracy.
Any one of the three men that decides to run has a rare opportunity – win or lose – to begin to redefine public service, reinvigorate our democracy and help bring about the change they seek. But if they all get into the race at once, they could transform our politics practically overnight. If they want to do something incredible for their country, they should really give it some thought, pick up the phone and talk it over.
Here’s why:
And the ending:
There are talented, thoughtful, independent-minded citizensaround the country who have ruled out a run for office, but they may reconsider if they see a real chance to make a difference without diving into the neck-deep muck of big-money politics. And there are surely some members of Congress who understand that our political process no longer serves the country well and who wish to leave a different legacy. They can leave a different legacy and lead a renewal of our democracy. Together those challenging Washington from the inside and from the outside have the power to unleash a new idealism in American politics and overpower the forces of cynicism, opportunism, entitlement and apathy.
Those answering this call need not be united by ideology or partisanship, only a dedication to a cause greater than themselves – the cause of America. The point isn’t to elect more Democrats, more Republicans or more independents. All things being equal, voters would choose a candidate who is a true public servant, rather than a party hack. But at the end of the day, voters will select the candidate who inspires the most confidence and bestrepresents their views. The only purpose is to let our democracy flourish and to give people a real choice.
Now be sure to read it from beginning to end — to learn all the details.
I’ve been out for a few hours - I was speaking as the Jewish representative at a Gay Pride Week Interfaith Service. What did our Republican candidates have to say?
May 22nd, 2007 by MICHAEL STICKINGS, Assistant Editor
On Saturday, Newt Gingrich gave the commencement address to the 2007 graduating class of Liberty University. Having already cozied up to James Dobson, and establishing himself as the would-be candidate of the religious right for ‘08, he used his address both to praise the university’s recently-deceasedbigot-founder, Jerry Falwell, and to rail against what he called a “growing culture of radical secularism”. Here’s a sampling of his advice to the graduates:
I urge you to seek the joy of life and the after life and to rid yourself of your dry, miserable, and spiritless materialistic existence.
Actually, that’s from a speech by Osama bin Laden to the American people (as quoted in Morris Berman’s Dark Ages America, from Michael Scheuer’s Imperial Hubris). But it fits, does it not?
In essense, what Gingrich actually asserted was that “radical secularism,” whatever that means, has taken over the United States at the expense of, and in opposition to, religion, however understood. He claimed, for example, that “[i]n hostility to American history, the radical secularists insist that religious belief is inherently divisive,” that radical secularists are using “contorted logic” and “false principles” in their attack on religion, and that “[b]asic fairness demands that religious beliefs deserve a chance to be heard”. Indeed: “It is wrong to single out those who believe in God for discrimination. Yet, today, it is impossible to miss the discrimination against religious believers.” Read the rest of this entry »
April 24th, 2007 by MICHAEL STICKINGS, Assistant Editor
Joe has already addressed Newt Gingrich’s claim that liberalism is to blame for the Virginia Tech shootings, but here, below, are my thoughts in response to that idiotic claim.
**********
In case you haven’t heard, Newt Gingrich has found the cause of the Virginia Tech shootings. Or, rather, he has found something upon which to pin the blame:
Liberalism.
Yes, that’s right. Liberalism.
On ABC’s This Week on Sunday, he blamed the shootings (and such violence generally) on video games, what he called “dehumanization,” and “the fact that we refuse to say that we are… endowed by our creator, that our rights come from God”. Stephanopoulos pressed him — “what does that have to do with liberalism?” — but all Newt could come up with was a rambling, incoherent mess that included “situation ethics,” “the use of language which is stunningly degrading of women,” and McCain-Feingold. Yes, McCain-Feingold. While political speech is being restricted, he claims, “it’s impossible to restrict vulgar and vicious and anti-human speech”. (Crooks and Liars has the video/transcript. So does Think Progress, along with more from Newt’s past. For more, see The Carpetbagger Report, PoliBlog, and DownWithTyranny!.)
I would conclude that he’s lost it, but I’m not so sure he had all that much to lose. I agree that some video games are violent and that young people should not have access to them, but it is ridiculous to claim that video games were behind this massacre. As well, it’s ridiculous to claim that atheism (or, rather, not believing in Newt’s God) or the absence of speech codes were behind it.
Let me address three points in particular:
1) Conservatives once argued, and occasionally still do argue, against speech codes on college campuses. Just to show what an unironic theocrat he has become, Newt is here arguing for speech codes, for restrictions on freedom. (As he has before. Apparently the First Amendment means so little to him that he is more than willing to defecate all over it.)
2) Conservatives once argued, or claimed that they argued (for it’s all mostly spin-happy rhetoric), for personal responsibility — a culture thereof, in fact. (Remember Bush in 2000? Remember how Clinton was held up as a model of personal irresponsibility?) They ridiculed liberals for suggesting that crime was social, not just personal and moral. But here we have Newt suggesting that the culture is to blame for what happened at Virginia Tech.
3) Apparently, according to Newt, there was no such violence and no such crime before liberalism, that it’s all a strictly liberal phenomenon. And, too, according to Newt, there is apparently no such violence and no such crime where Christianity, or at least Newt’s version of it, is strong. Consider that Newt is a history teacher. Consider how little Newt seems to know about history. I needn’t mention what was going on in the world before liberalism and when Christianity was the faith of choice and/or coercion.
Newt may have lost his mind, but he is dangerous because many people still, for whatever reason, seem to pay attention to him. And many on the right obviously share his view that liberalism is to blame for all of society’s ills.
If liberalism can be blamed for anything it is for allowing Newt and his simple-minded ilk to speak freely in a free and democratic country. But that, we liberals argue, is what liberalism is all about: freedom. Newt doesn’t get that, but it’s good that he is free to make such an ass of himself and that we are free to call him on it.
April 22nd, 2007 by JOE GANDELMAN, Editor-In-Chief
Those who are not wedded to demonizing “the other side” at all costs KNEW this would happen. We just had to figure out who it would come from. Jerry Falwell? Pat Robertson? Rush Limbaugh?
Well, no, it came from former House Speaker and apparent GOP Presidential wannabe Newt Gingrich.
Do you know what the REAL cause of the Virginia Tech Massacre was? It was liberalism …. according to Gingrich.
Isn’t it time for THINKING Americans to totally filter out, not listen to and not read people who can’t let even seven days go by before turning a barbaric outrage into a political vehicle to try and use against the other side?
In recent years this writer had begun to respect Newt Gingrich for his often unpredictable and independent comments on events. But now it has come time to skip over any news story about him, any columns written by him and not waste time doing posts on anything involving him. His credibility is zilch unless it comes to believing that he lives in a condo on the moon. If Mr. Gingrich does get the nomination (which seems as likely as water skiing on the sun) the Democrats should rejoice since his share of independent voters will be about as high as Vice President Dick Cheney’s popularity rating. If that much.
Yes, Newt. This is REALLY the way to heal Americans after a mass murder: say it’s due to one political ideology in America (and the way you define it).
WASHINGTON (AP) — Joining a growing list of Republicans, former House Speaker Newt Gingrich said Sunday that Attorney General Alberto Gonzales should consider resigning. The possible presidential candidate said the botched firing of U.S. attorneys has destroyed Gonzales’ credibility as the nation’s top law enforcer.
“I think the country, in fact, would be much better served to have a new team at the Justice Department, across the board,” Gingrich said. “I cannot imagine how he is going to be effective for the rest of this administration. … They’re going to be involved in endless hearings.”
Sen. Charles Schumer, D-New York, who is helping lead the investigation into the firing of eight federal prosecutors, said Gingrich’s comments pointed to building bipartisan support for a new attorney general.
Our linkfest offering readers a road map to interesting blog posts of varying viewpoints. Links do not necessarily represent views of The Moderate Voice or its writers.
Have We Just Seen “A Softer Gentler Iran?” Publius Pundit has a detailed answer 4 U.
Meanwhile, Are Pundits Using The Hostage Crisis For Political Agenda Gain? Oxblog’s Patrick Porter believes they are.
What Is It About Women Named “Monica?” Veteran newspaper editor, publisher and journalism teacher Robert Stein has some thoughts on the Bush administrations’ Monica problem.
What Liberal Critics Of Wal-Mart Are Missing: aTypical Joe gives a thoughtful take on the whole hot-button issue of Walmart and looks at it extensively. He offers a DIFFERENT TAKE on it than people on the left and right are used to reading. A small part of it:
But a funny thing happened on my way to ridicule - I gave it a second thought. I began to think of Wal-Mart from this side, the rural-resident side, of the Wal-Mart divide. With that second thought I realized the Wal-Mart divide is a reflection of the larger, even deeper, mars/venus gulf of culture and experience that divides city and country people. I realized that I live in that divide every day, and that I wish people would start listening to the country-side. Talk with them, not just about them, and certainly not for them.
But there’s a LOT MORE so read it in full.
The U.S. Support Of A Pakistani Militant Group Invading Iran has come under fire. TomDispatch looks at it and includes the controversial Noam Chomsky’s piece “If Iran Had Invaded Mexico” HERE. (This will be sure to spark lots of discussion in comments. Hold onto your seats..)
Has Hillary Clinton Failed An Important Big Test?Dick Polman (one of the best political writers in any universe) looks at Barack Obama Versus Hillary and concludes yes:
The plain truth is that the Clinton campaign has failed its first big test. The early ’07 goal was to blow Obama (and John Edwards) out of the water by demonstrating implacable money mastery. Instead, Obama in particular has served notice that the rookie is fully capable of slugging it out, over the long haul, with the Friends of Bill and the other well-wired inhabitants of Hillaryland. We don’t yet know officially that Obama has outraised Clinton in primary season money, but ABC News, citing inside sources, reported last night that he collected $23 million, and Clinton $20 million. Her campaign has declined to confirm or deny.
The bottom line is that, at least for now, she has lost the right to be considered the preemptive Democratic favorite.
And, indeed, Polman is correct. This seems to be the year of the un-preemptive preemptive. Wasn’t it only a few months ago that some pundits said John McCain seemed on his way to be the preemptive nominee? Perhaps he still is but he has to campaign now with a lot of body armor. And Giuliani? He was Mr. Up And Coming. But now on the GOP side Mr. Up And Coming seems to be Fred Thompson. This is actually enjoyable, because the ever-certain talking heads are more and more looking like sources of entertainment than people who can be relied on for predictions. Perhaps in this race anyone being crowned the likely “preemptive favorite” ought to run for cover, hire more staff and triple their campaign efforts. Read the rest of this entry »
April 4th, 2007 by MICHAEL STICKINGS, Assistant Editor
Over the weekend, as you may know by now, Newt Gingrich said this in a speech to the National Federation of Republican Women:
The American people believe English should be the official language of the government. We should replace bilingual education with immersion in English so people learn the common language of the country and they learn the language of prosperity, not the language of living in a ghetto.
Whatever the problems with this English-only view — I do think that any political community, including one as vast as the U.S., needs a common language to facilitate communication, but it is completely ridiculous to suggest that learning other languages should be abolished (such linguistic isolationism is entirely counter-productive in a world that is growing ever smaller with the increasingly rapid and kinetic expansion of the forces of globalization, positive and negative alike) — the particular problem with Gingrich’s comment lies in his use of the word “ghetto”. Just what did he mean by it? Read the rest of this entry »
Our linkfest offering readers a road map to interesting blog posts of varying viewpoints. Links do not necessarily represent views of The Moderate Voice or its writers.
