If I got to choose who the Republican candidate for president would be, I would pick someone who isn’t even running – yet: Newt Gingrich.
I don’t see anything wrong with the Republicans running now; Rudy Giuliani would probably be a good president. But if the federal government is to function properly, I think the country needs someone like Newt Gingrich.
My family lived in Georgia when Gingrich was speaker of the house. Back then, all I knew was that a few politicians had funny names, and Gingrich was one of them. (By the way, for those of you who ought to know better, Newt is named after his father, Newton. He is not related to amphibians.)
I didn’t know who Gingrich was until two years ago. I was watching C-Span (yes, I do that sometimes): Gingrich was giving a lecture on U. S. government to college students. I was impressed by Gingrich’s intelligence. He sounded like a college professor – probably because he was one in the 1970s.
Since then, I’ve learned about Gingrich in U. S. history in my junior year of high school and seen him on news channels. Newt Gingrich is the only politician I have ever heard give a speech with real content. When he talks, he says something, and what he says makes sense. He does not flip-flop, and I don’t think he would “play politics.”
Gingrich is very smart – he has a doctorate in history. If any of the Democratic candidates had a debate with him, they would lose. Of all the candidates, I think Gingrich would be least likely to be involved in a scandal or political mistake. The Bush administration has given liberals much to criticize: the firing of the U. S. attorneys, the issue with Scooter Libby, the handling of the war in Iraq. Gingrich’s presidential policy would probably be wiser and more open than President Bush’s. I think I could trust Gingrich more than the other candidates for president. And which candidate would bring some calm to Washington? Not Hillary Clinton (Barack Obama might).
Since he was a member of the House of Representatives for 20 years and served as speaker of the house, Gingrich has the necessary political experience. He would know what to do as president, and he has the right goals: Gingrich wants to make government smaller, more efficient, and less wasteful (that’s what it really means to be conservative). Gingrich would spend LESS MONEY. I don’t think any of the current candidates would do that.
Gingrich knows how to get things done – that’s what he did with the Contract with America. He would follow the Constitution, whereas all the Democratic candidates for president are leaning toward socialism (with ideas like universal health care).
I disagree with Gingrich on one point: the depth of the terrorist threat. Gingrich might believe terrorism is a larger and more imminent problem than it really is. I’ve heard Gingrich mention several times that America might “lose a city”. That’s a possibility, but a very remote one. It’s not worth repeating unless you’re using sensationalism to support your point. However, Gingrich knows more about this than I do, and at least he would keep the war on terrorism an important issue.
As for Gingrich’s recent admission to having an affair – during President Clinton’s trial, no less – I was disappointed, but I expected to find something wrong with Gingrich sooner or later. I have three things to say about this: 1. People still like Bill Clinton. 2. I don’t think Gingrich would have lied about his affair (listen to his interview with James Dobson). 3. Gingrich is still an excellent politician. His views are sound. He would be a good president.
While I think that this is a well-written article, I could not help but disagree with the point about Newt being least likely to be involved in a scandle or a political mistake. It recently surfaced that Newt was having an affair with a mistress while he was spear-heading the campaign against President Clinton for his affair. I would venture to say that this is quite a scandal.
Jake,
Some of the things you mentioned have been attributed to G. W. Bush as well-- especially the "flip-flop" comparison with Kelly. To me it means nothing else than that he can't admit a mistake or adjust to changing environments. Personally, I prefer someone in power willing to adjust, rather than "stay the c(o)urse".
Also, your statement about him having a doctorate in history, and therefore any democratic candidate would lose an debate is unfounded-- it all depends on the topic of the debate. B. Obama taught constitutional law, H. Clinton is a lawyer. And while I'm at it-- if you ever take the time to read the trial transcripts of the Dover ID trial (a very interesting read indeed!), you will find that Mr. M. Behe, proponent of ID and professor for biochemistry at Lehigh, was literally ripped to shreds by the prosecution-- so having a doctorate doesn't mean you will win, especially not, when you don't have any facts for your case to offer.
Your statement that Hillary won't bring any calm to D.C. subjective, not objective. The last thing I want in D.C. is "a calm". Major mistakes have been made and the people responsible need to be held accountable. I don't trust any Republican candidate to handle this task.
Before you claim that conservatives work well with money, you should check out the following publication from the Congressional Budget Office:
- http://www.cbo.gov/budget/historical.pdf
If these numbers are nearly accurate, it shows a dramatic increase in the national deficit in the twelve (Republican) years before Clinton, a major plus at the end of Clinton's government as well as an ever-increasing deficit numbers for the Bush administration. Yet, I doubt that you will call Clinton a conservative.
Could you please explain to me what is wrong about universal health care? It apparently works fine in Europe, as I can tell by personal experience.
As I mentioned in the March dated posts, I very much prefer a universal health care system over some other spendings any day.
You mentioned in a response to my March posts the fact that I supposedly exaggerate statements, especially what I said about Habeas Corpus. Maybe you let history (and American citizens) decide about that:
- http://usinfo.state.gov/usa/infousa/facts/democrac/65.htm
- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_American_internment
Another interesting read about a similar topic would be Edwin Black's "War against the weak".
BTW, I'm not an American citizen-- I presently reside (and pay taxes) here. Thus, this item is extremely important to me. You said that limiting Habeas Corpus only applies to terrorists. But who decides that, if not a court of law? What about "Innocent until proven guilty"? It's going to be hard of anyone, not just me, to prove to be innocent, if that person is stuck in a prison cell without any legal representation and no court date for the next 25 years.
Here a quote from you in a previous post: "While I am wary that some of the administration's actions (like warrantless wiretapping) are of questionable constitutionality, the debate over their constitutionality is not decided. Thus, you cannot say that the administration has commited injustices."
Basically, this government violated the law, which, as far as I know, is considered not just a questionable, but also an criminal act:
- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_Intelligence_Surveillance_Act
Therefore, my (also subjective) view is that I see another Republican president will not tackle the issues that I think need to be resolved.
Oh, the folly of youth. Do we really want to elect a serial adulterer to lecture us on our morality? Who left his wife while she was suffering from cancer? Who was reprimanded by Congress for ethics violations? International Herald Tribune, January 22, 1997: "Mr. Gingrich had admitted ...to charges of misusing tax-exempt funds for partisan purposes and failing to provide the House ethics committee with accurate information."
If you think this man has any moral or ethical capability to be honest and responsible to the American people as President, you're just ignoring the facts.
Congratulations for making a case and having an opinion. Too many youth do not. However, many children learn about politics (and religion) from their parents who learned from their parents. I expect the author is expressing the feelings of his family. It won't be until they learn to read and research on their own, and understand the complexity of government and human nature, that they will understand what is best for the country as a whole. You have to learn to ask Why would universal health care be bad? Not just say cost. If we based all decisions on cost, we would still be back in the dark ages. Cost should be close to the last determinant in govt decisions. Keep watching C-Span!
Nope. Jake didn't learn about Mr. Gingrich from us - sort of the other way around.