Whether or not you agree with his politics, it’s easy to understand why many people consider former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich to be one of the most intelligent men in all of politics.
Over at HumanEvents.org, Newt has written a brilliant piece about what Republicans should learn about the Nicolas Sarkozy win in France:
As for the opposition in the French election, much like the American Democratic Party, it is trapped by its commitment to big labor, big bureaucracy, high taxes and social values people don’t believe in. Every time French voters seriously looked at Ségolène Royal and the kind of politics she represents, she lost ground. She simply couldn’t make the case that left-wing Socialist policies would work.
The result was a surprising and powerful upset by Sarkozy — a victory by a center-right reformer, a member of the unpopular ruling party, who came to personify change.
And here’s where American Republicans really need to pay attention: In France, voting for change meant voting for the party in office, but not the personality in office. And voting to keep the old order meant voting for the opposition, not for the incumbent party.
If Republicans hope to win the presidency next year, they better find a candidate who is prepared to stand for very bold, very dramatic and very systematic change in Washington. Not only that, but they had better make the case that the left-wing Democrat likely to be nominated represents the failed status quo: the bureaucracies that are failing, the social policies that are failing, the high tax policies that are failing, and the weakness around the world that has failed so badly in protecting America.
Unfortunately, with the exception of Rep. Ron Paul — who has zero chance of even winning the GOP nomination — the GOP candidate that Gingrich is describing isn’t even in the picture (yet, I hope).
Email This Post
⋅
Print This Post
Yup, they better pay attention to Newt.
When I see the three front runners, I think to myself, I’d like to take a piece of each of them and when they were put together, there’d be one formidable candidate. As they stand alone, they each have shortcomings. I watched Thompson’s speech and I wasn’t that impressed with him.
I think it’s still a wide open race.
Sure, Newt, the reason that Bush has a 28% approval is public rejection of NCLB and the Medicare bill…
Do you really think that Bush didn’t implement the cut to the bone domestic policy that Newt wants for some ideological reason? I may not teach political science at Kennesaw State College but I’m inclined to believe the reason that Bush increased the budget by over 7% every year his first term was that it was popular. Of course, Bush had the advantage of cashing in on the Clinton surpluses while the next President will be busy cleaning up after Bush.
I hate to say it but the way to run against Bush is to call for a withdrawal from Iraq.
Preston you are of course aware that the goverment will almost certainly go into surplus within 2 or 3 years, aren’t you? Even with the war, Rita, and Katrina goverment revenues continue to climb much faster than CBO projections.
This great inpouring of wealth is the direct result of the Bush tax cuts.
Lower tax rates means more revenue to the goverment.
It’s so simple even a cave man could understand it.
Too bad our liberal friends can’t.
liberal talking point liberal talking point liberal talking point liberal talking point. I can also do this all day Preston! WAKE_UP
What’s up, bro? Glad to see you come out of lurk-mode from time-to-time to drop a comment.
Ya’ll going to mom’s this weekend? (We’re not going to make it this year — Shannon’s parents are coming to Austin for the weekend…)
Lower tax rates means more revenue to the goverment.
Wow! If we drop the tax rate to zero the government will be rich!!!
Jim, a little advice: if an important government official from Nigeria emails you with an opportunity to inherit millions of dollars- don’t do it.
Randy- rather than a vague accusation of me reciting ‘talking points’ why not address my comments. (I find the accusation sort of puzzling in any case- is there really any thing controversial in pointing out that Bush’s unpopularity is related to his administration of the war in Iraq?)
The point, once again, is:
1. Bush is unpopular because of the war.
2. No candidate supporting withdrawal will win the GOP primary.
3. Domestically, Bush was as conservative as he could be: Alito, Tomlinson, and tax cuts appeased the base while Bush appeased moderates (and some liberals) with NCLB and the Medicare Act and lavish government spending.
4. Attempts by a Gingrich-like President to add massive government cuts to other conservative policies enacted by Bush would be ridiculously unpopular.
5. Therefore Gingrich’s advice is meaningless: Impossible in Iraq; Unpopular Domestically.
Feel free to disagree.
Preston,President Bush is not unpopular because of the war,the war is unpopular because of the media. Also, no dem. canidate who supports the pull out will win the Presidency.Third, tax cuts are good ,social handouts are bad.And finally,being popular should not dictate policy issues.
also, hey bro. we’re going to mom’s on mem. weekend. say hello to your lovely wife for me.
President Bush is not unpopular because of the war,the war is unpopular because of the media
Wow. Well, there you have it- an explanation of how 28% of the country still thinks this President has been anything but a stunning disaster for our country: a media conspiracy. Not the equivilent of several Virginia Tech massacres every day; the exodus of 2 million Iraqis; the deaths over more Americans than were lost on September 11; the cost of extending the viability of Social Security for an extra 50 years. Then media just has to tell Americans the good news (and get over their fears of being kidnapped and beheaded while doing so…)
Randy, I would encourage you to take a walk over to dailyhowler.com . The guy is a little shrill (as they say) for my taste but he does a good job of media criticism and let’s say that his findings diverge from your own.
For instance: are you aware that in the nine month run up to the war, Meet the Press, one of the most important Sunday news shows, had three anti-war guests on to discuss their views with Tim Russert? Not a very good job of brainwashing the American public with pacificist propaganda…
More to the point- elite media opinion still lags behind American popular opinion. Americans have felt for well over a year that the US should not be standing in the middle of a civil war in Iraq yet nearly every ‘pundit’ on tv urges us to wait another “six months” to see how things are going. (What do you want to bet that in six months we are told that it’s still too early to withdraw?)
Third, tax cuts are good ,social handouts are bad
I value a strong America more than end to taxes. I think it’s a fair trade off to ask Paris Hilton to pay some inheritance taxes in exchange for, say, millions of Americans getting access to a better education.
(Maybe not as snappy as your slogan but a little more humane I’ll venture) It’s not as if people didn’t have a chance to get outrageously wealthy under the tax code of the 1990′s afterall.
The office I worked at in 2001 was right across the street from the capitol building here in Austin. In the days that followed the horrific terrorist attacks on 9/11, the anti-war protestors were out in full force on the grounds and steps of the capitol.
They were protesting the war against the people who had just attacked us — Muslim extremist from al Qaeda — before we even started fighting back.
When we finally took the war to Afghanistan, the protests grew larger.
When we shifted the war on terror to include the center of world terrorism, Iraq, the protests grew even larger. Despite the fact that the streets of Iraq are overrun with al Qaeda, the left and the MSM began harping that Iraq had no connection to al Qaeda (despite a very large group who calls themselves, oddly enough, al Qaeda in Iraq).
The war on terror was immensly unpopular before we ever started fighting it.
SO I think it’s important to look at why this is true.
IN large part because the Left has hated President Bush with a burning rage long before the terrorist attacks on our country. They hated him because he was his father’s son. They hated him because they (still) believe that he stole the election from The Promised Oneâ„¢ in 2000. And, shortly after the war started, they couldn’t believe that Bush actually beat their unbeatable Vietnam War Veteran/Heroâ„¢ candidate in 2004.
IF President Bush had found a cure for cancer and AIDS, the BDS-afflicted Left would have protested it.
Secondly, the MSM in this country has a long history of a Left-leaning bias. Not until FOX News has their been a right-of-center perspective on our news. To believe that our MSM — CBS, NBC, ABC, NPR, MSNBC, CNN, The New York Times, The LA Times, the Washington Post, TIME, etc. — isn’t slanted Left is naive at best, and willful ignorance at worst.
For God’s sake, we had the Left’s most “trusted” and senior News anchor using faked memos — even after he and his network knew they were faked — to attack a sitting President. The only people who still believe the authenticity of those memos also believe that fire can’t melt steel.
And the coverage of this war — where networks have openly and willingly aired enemy propoganda (filmed by the enemy themselves), where our networks have attacked, judged, and sentenced our soldiers at Haditha, Abu Ghraib, and Guantanamo Bay in the worst and most unfair light they could stir up — has been deplorable.
The MSM has been cheerleading — along with the protestors and the Democratic leadership — the loss of this war.
Doing what is right is not always easy and doing what is easy is not always right.
Winning the war on terror is what is right. Giving up and coming home is what is easy.
And yes, I think this war’s unpopularity is due in very large part to the fact that the MSM has intentionally swayed them to that conclusion.
If you haven’t been to Iraq, and you don’t actively seek out alternative news sources (mil bloggers who are either active duty soldiers in Iraq, or intrepid journalists who are embedded with units outside the fence) — you’re going to believe what you are fed everyday.
You might not know that this war, by any and every historical measure has been an unprecedented success — though by no means anywhere near to victory or completion. You might not remeber that we are fighting a very real war that al Qaeda declared on the United States (in 1997), and that that war will not end by pulling out of Iraq now.
You might not know that retreating now will emolden our enemy, and allow them a fertile and welcome (and very lucrative) country from which to re-group in their efforts to kill more Americans.
But just because you don’t know (or refuse to believe) any of this, doesn’t make it not true.
What liberal press? Just ask Camille Paglia:
It sure hasn’t been for a lack of trying.
Robbie:
Hating the ‘dirty fucking hippies’ is not a sufficient foreign policy. The fact that a few people protested the invasion of Afghanistan is utter beside the question whether being in Iraq is advancing our national security interests.
(Regarding your ‘Promised One’ dig: you do recall that Gore lost because he was attacked from the Left? )
you might not know that this war, by any and every historical measure has been an unprecedented success —
We defeated both the Nazis and the Japanese in less time. In any case, liberals are perfectly aware that we need to destroy al Qaeda- if it’s not utterly clear after four years that being in Iraq is hurting that cause I’m not going to expect a sudden epiphany.
About Paglia and Cheney: Where to begin? Is it liberal of the press to report when Dick Cheney lies to their faces? I know it’s very embarrassing for the press to do so but they should try it more often. As for ‘laying a glove’ on him: what does she think would happen if the press did- Cheney would apologize and resign in shame? HAHA. In any case, Cheney is only slightly more popular than Chlamydia.
We defeated both the Nazis and the Japanese in less time.
Oh, look! The token liberal is advocating nuclear warfare and carpet bombing. lol!
I’d hardly call Preston “token”.
An asides really — looking back historically at my comments section, I’d guess that more than 75% of commenters disagree with me. Which I think is in line with many other blogs — people who disagree are more inclined to write and tell you why they disagree or why I am wrong.
People who agree with you are less inclined to say, “Me too.”
I’d hardly call Preston “tokenâ€.
How about “tokin’ liberal”?