The pomposity is astounding... Hmmm. One thing that's clear is that Gingrich is not a "reluctant" candidate. I suspect his "compelling solutions" are recycled Hertitage Foundation tracts. And he's certainly no Lincoln. And is it so surprising that a man of Gingrich's ego would read abook about Lincoln and miss the point because he imagines Lincoln as Gingrich and convinces himself that Gingrich would have done what Lincoln did, therefore Gingrich can do what Lincoln did. If Gingrich was Greek he would be celebrated in literature for centuries because of his hubris. As it is, he will remain a footnote. And by the way here are some things Lincoln said in that speech... a speech that eviscerated the pro-slavery arguments by appealing to the founders and reason... compare and contrast with Gingrich's ramblings... But you say you are conservative - eminently conservative - while we are revolutionary, destructive, or something of the sort. What is conservatism? Is it not adherence to the old and tried, against the new and untried? We stick to, contend for, the identical old policy on the point in controversy which was adopted by "our fathers who framed the Government under which we live;" while you with one accord reject, and scout, and spit upon that old policy, and insist upon substituting something new. True, you disagree among yourselves as to what that substitute shall be. You are divided on new propositions and plans, but you are unanimous in rejecting and denouncing the old policy of the fathers. Some of you are for reviving the foreign slave trade; some for a Congressional Slave-Code for the Territories; some for Congress forbidding the Territories to prohibit Slavery within their limits; some for maintaining Slavery in the Territories through the judiciary; some for the "gur-reat pur-rinciple" that "if one man would enslave another, no third man should object," fantastically called "Popular Sovereignty;" but never a man among you is in favor of federal prohibition of slavery in federal territories, according to the practice of "our fathers who framed the Government under which we live." Not one of all your various plans can show a precedent or an advocate in the century within which our Government originated. Consider, then, whether your claim of conservatism for yourselves, and your charge or destructiveness against us, are based on the most clear and stable foundations. Slavery? Or is he talking about torture and illegal wiretaps? You charge that we stir up insurrections among your slaves. We deny it; and what is your proof? Harper's Ferry! John Brown!! John Brown was no Republican; and you have failed to implicate a single Republican in his Harper's Ferry enterprise. If any member of our party is guilty in that matter, you know it or you do not know it. If you do know it, you are inexcusable for not designating the man and proving the fact. If you do not know it, you are inexcusable for asserting it, and especially for persisting in the assertion after you have tried and failed to make the proof. You need to be told that persisting in a charge which one does not know to be true, is simply malicious slander. A message that could easily be delivered to the Republican Party that Gingrich built... The question recurs, what will satisfy them? Simply this: We must not only let them alone, but we must somehow, convince them that we do let them alone. This, we know by experience, is no easy task. We have been so trying to convince them from the very beginning of our organization, but with no success. In all our platforms and speeches we have constantly protested our purpose to let them alone; but this has had no tendency to convince them. Alike unavailing to convince them, is the fact that they have never detected a man of us in any attempt to disturb them. These natural, and apparently adequate means all failing, what will convince them? This, and this only: cease to call slavery wrong, and join them in calling it right. And this must be done thoroughly - done in acts as well as in words. Silence will not be tolerated - we must place ourselves avowedly with them. Senator Douglas' new sedition law must be enacted and enforced, suppressing all declarations that slavery is wrong, whether made in politics, in presses, in pulpits, or in private. We must arrest and return their fugitive slaves with greedy pleasure. We must pull down our Free State constitutions. The whole atmosphere must be disinfected from all taint of opposition to slavery, before they will cease to believe that all their troubles proceed from us. That last one has a bit of relevence to the current "culture wars," eh?
he does have an enormous amount of hutzpah, but that's not necessarily a bad thing, and if you feel, as i and many others do, that "as our case is new, so must we think anew and act anew", then you need someone with the hutzpah to craft and deliver a new vision for this country. Gingrich is one of the few of whom it can be said they've articulated a comprehensive vision for the future of this country. i'm not saying i agree w/ his proposals, just that he recognizes the challenges we face, and has got a plan to address them, and at this point that more than can be said of any other candidate. still, w/ out a ground campaign, there's no way he can win, and if he runs as an independent, he'd pull enough votes from the republican candidate to guarantee Hillbama victory. my preference would be for a four person race. One establishment candidate from each party, say Hillary and Rudy G, and one wild card from each side of the political spectrum. if the race were between Al Gore, Hillary, Rudy G, and Newt, who would win? don't know, but the debates would be hella fun to watch!
Gingrich is a fruitcake. He's the kind of guy that thrives either as a grenade thrower or as a theoretician. He used both skills well to overthrow the Dems in the House and uses the 2nd skill to make a living and keep his name in the news. But the fact is when intense pressure and scrutiny are put on the guy he implodes and self-destructs. His complete failure as House speaker should make it plain to everyone he isn't psychologically or emotionally fit to be president. Some people are good leaders in spite of major flaws. Some people are very intelligent, have a few good ideas, but are not fit to be leaders at a high levels. This describes Newt the Nut but his ego is too big for him to realize it. His highest calling in politics is to influence leaders, not be one. A good Republican president could take some of Newt's workable proposals and put them into practice but Newt is such a flawed messenger his defects would overshadow and kill his best ideas if he somehow became president.
Newt is the poster child for Christian Family Values. Seriously, Newt had what it took to lead his party to victory in 1994, but his ability to govern once winning did not work out so well. What this be good for the country? See the W Presidency and its Legacy.
i'd vote for him depending on the opposition, but as others have said.... what'd he accomplish when he was in power before?
I'd like that too- each candidate would be less likely to try and be everything for everybody, always pretending to be centrist when they're not. Our two-party system is so f*cked.
