Gingrich: Republicans need "clean break" from Bush

[adios]

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]

[ 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]

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]

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]

[ 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]

[ 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.

[John Kilduff]

[ QUOTE ]
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.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think what Gingrich is saying likely encompasses that, but that there is also more to it.

Gingrich is either mostly a Traditionalist Conservative or a Paleoconservative (not sure which since I don't know a lot about him), but one thing Gingrich definitely is not, is a Neoconservative.

Many Traditionalists and Paleos have long looked askance and with dismay at the rise to power of Neoconservatism. The Bush administration and its many failings may be causing the Traditionalists and Paleos to think something like:

"and so this is what Neoconservatism has wrought. It looks like we need to bring Conservatism and Republicanism back to their roots before Bush completely destroys the Republican Party. The USA can still be saved but the Neoconservative political philosophy and the current administration are even more harmful that we had thought they would be, and we need to make a clear and clean break from them". (Many Traditionalists and Paleos did say, years ago, that it would be bad for America - they just probably didn't suspect it would be this bad).

Congress has been rejecting Bush's Neoconservative policies to some degree lately, though Congress still can't get its act together enough to pull the rug out from under the Iraq War. The recent defeat of Bush's Immigration Amnesty bill shows that both grassroots America and Congress are starting to stand up against Neonconservative political elite policies being rammed down America's throat.

I also do like what Gingrich said that it's not about Bush personally (because Bush strikes me also as a good and sincere man, just politically mistaken). What Gingrich is voicing is IMO a rejection of the administration's policies and probably also growing resistance to Neoconservatism.

[whiskeytown]

[ QUOTE ]
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.


[/ QUOTE ]

in essence, the candidates are saying the same thing by NOT saying anything.

In the first debate, Osama got 14 mentions to GWB's one - they're distancing themselves much further then Gore did from Clinton, and as things heat up, they'll be invoking the memory of Ronald Reagan, the patron saint of Conservatives.

RB

[andyfox]

Reminds me very much of the conundrum the Democrats faced in 1968. Hubert Humphrey could never quite decide if he was a loyal follower of the administration's Vietnam line or wanted to change course. The Dems were hopelessly divided on Vietnam, whereas the Republicans, this time, don't seem as vituperative amongst themselves, but still--very, very reminiscent.

The Iraq/Vietnam similarities continue.

[andyfox]

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?