Gingrich: Republicans need "clean break" from Bush

adios · #1 09-14-2007, 04:21 PM

Newt weighs in:

Gingrich: Republicans need "clean break" from Bush

A few excerpts:

If you don't represent real change, you just gave away the 2008 election," said former House Speaker Newt Gingrich,...

and

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.

and

On Iraq, Gingrich said that "to stay the course I think in the long run is not a very sound strategy," and that the United States should work quickly to stop Iran's "proxy war" against U.S. troops in Iraq.

He said this should be done in a non-violent way, such as through diplomatic sanctions, economic pressure and covert action and "if necessary with indirect military application."

IMO Gingrich is basically saying that the Bush administration is a failure and it's ok for the Republicans to start saying it out loud. I really doubt that the Republicans will offer up anything that's really different but wait .... Ron Paul? I don't think Paul will win the nomination but he's offering a change. Romney, Guliani, McCain, Thompson? Nope don't think so.

Kaj · #2 09-14-2007, 04:23 PM

[ QUOTE ]
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.

[/ QUOTE ]

So having all 3 branches of the federal govt controlled by his own party wasn't the answer after all, huh? But instead exacerbated the problem? Surprise, surprise.

Also, I find the irony of the US outrage regarding Iranian supplies of insurgents to be comical. Who supplied Saddam during the '80s Iran-Iraq war so that he could kill more Iranians? Oh yeah...

Scary_Tiger · #3 09-14-2007, 05:54 PM

Newt Gingrich is trying to fit the glass slipper on the ugly stepsisters Giuliani, Romney and Thompson while Paul remains locked up in the attic.

BigPoppa · #4 09-14-2007, 06:05 PM

They don't really think Bush and his policies are a problem, just the unpopularity of Bush and his policies. If he were still popular, they'd still be clinging to him like Saran wrap.

AlexM · #5 09-14-2007, 06:17 PM

[ QUOTE ]
They don't really think Bush and his policies are a problem, just the unpopularity of Bush and his policies. If he were still popular, they'd still be clinging to him like Saran wrap.

[/ QUOTE ]

Newt is one person, not "they." More importantly though, how are you able to read his mind?

John Kilduff · #6 09-14-2007, 06:50 PM

[ QUOTE ]
They don't really think Bush and his policies are a problem, just the unpopularity of Bush and his policies. If he were still popular, they'd still be clinging to him like Saran wrap.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think this conveys the whole picture. "Bush-type" Republicanism and "Gingrich-type" Republicanism are two very different things and are in many ways far apart ideologically.

edit: or maybe it would be more accurate to say that their respective types of Conservatism are very different.

adios · #7 09-17-2007, 09:08 AM

[ QUOTE ]
They don't really think Bush and his policies are a problem, just the unpopularity of Bush and his policies. If he were still popular, they'd still be clinging to him like Saran wrap.

[/ QUOTE ]

Bush's policies would be more popular if the US wasn't involved in Iraq at the present time IMO. Bush bought the farm when he listened to advisors that told him post invasion Iraq would embrace the US and it's goals. If that would have happened then he would have been popular but since it didn't ... I agree that politicians react to the sentiment of the voters but that seems to be the way the system should work but maybe not.

andyfox · #8 09-14-2007, 11:44 PM

Yeah, really, did the U.S. think Iran would just roll over and not take any action when it invaded and occupied it's neighbors on both sides?

Kaj · #9 09-14-2007, 11:58 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Yeah, really, did the U.S. think Iran would just roll over and not take any action when it invaded and occupied it's neighbors on both sides?

[/ QUOTE ]

WHAT!?!?!?! What gives any country the right to preemptively attack Saddam Hussein's regime?!?!?!?!?!? THOSE F$%^&$$!*NG IRANIAN WARMONGERS!!!!!!!!!!! LETS NUKE THEM!

adios · #10 09-17-2007, 09:26 AM

[ QUOTE ]
So having all 3 branches of the federal govt controlled by his own party wasn't the answer after all, huh?

[/ QUOTE ]

Highly debatable. What time period are we talking about? The Republicans gained control of Congress in 1994 but Clinton was president from 1993-2001. The Democrats were in control of the Senate from 2001-2003 and are in control of the Senate now. The Democrats are also currently in control of the House now.

As far as the judiciary is concerned, the Republican leaning members of the Supreme Court are probably in the majority but I don't think this was the case until the Alito nomination and it's still unclear to me that the Republicans are in control of the Supreme Court. Counting on Kennedy to always render a decision popular to conservative Republicans has been proven to be an erroneous assumption. Are you saying that the Republicans are in control of the lower Federal courts? If so could you back that up?

[ QUOTE ]
Also, I find the irony of the US outrage regarding Iranian supplies of insurgents to be comical. Who supplied Saddam during the '80s Iran-Iraq war so that he could kill more Iranians? Oh yeah...

[/ QUOTE ]

So you're stating that the U.S. should have remained neutral in that conflict?