Rick,

So true and unfortunately its going to take something like the above to make some people wake up.

Joe

Ain't that the truth! A very likeable guy that I went to high school with had that gift. Seemingly groomed for politics, he was gifted at debate, and could probably win any argument (either side) because of his talent. Bob, you might even know of whom I speak, as he was recently voted out of office in AZ, and deservedly so imo. (For the record, I'm referring to former House member John David Hayworth, or JD as he goes by now). I haven't seen him in years, you won't find a more likeable guy, but he is/was the epitome of a political "talking head" (and damn good at it too) imo. Giving a good speech and being a good leader are not synonymous imo, but you do have to start somewhere :).

Newt has recently been quoted as saying the "War on Terror" is phony. I guess he was pandering to this particular crowd and decided not to mention that.

Can I volunteer Fresno?

Gingrich says war on terror 'phony'
Former speaker says energy independence is key

By BOB DEANS
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
Published on: 08/03/07

Washington — Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich said Thursday the Bush administration is waging a "phony war" on terrorism, warning that the country is losing ground against the kind of Islamic radicals who attacked the country on Sept. 11, 2001.

A more effective approach, said Gingrich, would begin with a national energy strategy aimed at weaning the country from its reliance on imported oil and some of the regimes that petro-dollars support.

"None of you should believe we are winning this war. There is no evidence that we are winning this war," the ex-Georgian told a group of about 300 students attending a conference for collegiate conservatives.

Gingrich, who led the so-called Republican Revolution that won the GOP control of both houses of Congress in 1994 midterm elections, said more must be done to marshal national resources to combat Islamic militants at home and abroad and to prepare the country for future attack. He was unstinting in his criticism of his fellow Republicans, in the White House and on Capitol Hill.

"We were in charge for six years," he said, referring to the period between 2001 and early 2007, when the GOP controlled the White House and both houses of Congress. "I don't think you can look and say that was a great success."

Thursday's National Conservative Student Conference was sponsored by the Young America's Foundation, a Herndon, Va.-based group founded in the 1960s as a political counterpoint to the left-leaning activists who coalesced around the civil rights movement and opposition to the Vietnam War.

Gingrich retains strong support among conservatives and ranked fifth among possible Republican nominees behind former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, with the backing of 7 percent of those queried in a ABC News/Washington Post poll taken last week. The poll surveyed 403 Republicans and Republican-leaning adults nationwide and has a 5 percentage-point margin of error.

"I believe we need to find leaders who are prepared to tell the truth ... about the failures of the performance of Republicans ... failed bureaucracies ... about how dangerous the world is," he said when asked what kind of Republican he would back for president.

Gingrich has been promoting a weekly political newsletter he calls "Winning the Future." It's available free to those who leave their e-mail addresses at

www.winningthefuture

.net, one of several Web sites he is connected with or operating. Gingrich began writing the newsletter in April 2006, and it now goes out to 311,000 readers each week, said Gingrich spokesman Rick Tyler.

Political salon

At another Web site — www.americansolutions

.com — Gingrich is running a virtual political salon, with video clips, organizational information and contacts revolving around his conservative vision for the country's future. It asks supporters to join in an Internet "Solutions Day" on Sept. 27, the anniversary of Gingrich's so-called Contract With America, a slate of conservative policies he led through Congress as speaker of the House a decade and a half ago.

"What I'm trying to start is a new dialogue that is evidence-based," Gingrich said Thursday. "It doesn't start from the right wing, it doesn't start from the left wing," he said, but is an effort to get politicians and voters to "look honestly at the evidence of what isn't working and tell us how to change it."

Gingrich was interrupted with applause once, when he called for an end to the biting partisanship critics say has polarized national politics and paralyzed the workings of government.

"We have got to get past this partisan baloney, where I'm not allowed to say anything good about Hillary Clinton because 'I'm not a loyal Republican,' and she's not allowed to say anything good about me, or she's not a 'loyal' Democrat. What a stupid way to run a country."

He reserved his most pointed criticism for the administration's handling of the global campaign against terrorist groups.

"We've been engaged in a phony war," said Gingrich. "The only people who have been taking this seriously are the combat military."

His remarks seemed to reflect, in part, the findings of a National Intelligence Estimate made public last month.

In the estimate, the U.S. intelligence community concluded that six years of U.S. efforts to degrade the al-Qaida terrorist group had left the organization constrained but still potent, having "protected or regenerated" the capability to attack the United States in ways that have left the country "in a heightened threat environment."

"We have to take this seriously," said Gingrich.

"We used to be a serious country. When we got attacked at Pearl Harbor, we took on Imperial Japan, Fascist Italy and Nazi Germany," he said, referring to World War II.

"We beat all three in less than four years. We're about to enter the seventh year of this phony war against ... [terrorist groups], and we're losing."

Successful approach

Gingrich said he would lay out in a Sept. 10 speech what a successful U.S. approach to this threat would have looked like over the past six years.

"First of all, we have to have a national energy strategy, which basically says to the Saudis, 'We're not going to rely on you,' " he said.

The United States imports about 14 million barrels of oil a day, making up two-thirds of its total consumption.

Nice out of context work tech, thank you Shaun for the article. I don't see any inconsistencies. Phony as in we are not taking it seriously.

This is CNN's review of the luncheon I was at. At the head table were David Broder, Eleanor Cliff, Marvin Kalb and Clarence Page. So there are probably several other reviews of this event in their papers.

Modern road to White House 'verges on insane,' says Gingrich


WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Potential presidential hopeful Newt Gingrich on Tuesday blasted the modern-day road to the White House as too long, too expensive and verging on "insane."

The former House speaker from Georgia said he will decide whether to enter the GOP presidential field in October. But in a wide-ranging speech at the National Press Club in Washington, he ridiculed campaign consultants and spin doctors who he said are extending the 2008 campaign. He said presidential debates have become "almost unendurable."

"These aren't debates," the former Georgia congressman said. "This is a cross between [TV shows] 'The Bachelor,' 'American Idol' and 'Who's Smarter than a Fifth-Grader.'"

"What's the job of the candidate in this world?" asked Gingrich. "The job of the candidate is to raise the money to hire the consultants to do the focus groups to figure out the 30-second answers to be memorized by the candidate. This is stunningly dangerous."

Gingrich said the need to raise tens of millions of dollars has driven campaigns to begin cranking up much earlier than ever. Meanwhile, he said, advisers are telling candidates to begin campaigning "as soon as possible -- I need a check."

"Go look at all the analysis," said Gingrich. "Why are people starting early? Because you can't build the organization. What are you building the organization for? So you can raise the money."

But for most voters, he said, the race "begins after Christmas, no matter what the news media has to cover." He cited the example of former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean, who was the Democratic front-runner until the first votes of the 2004 campaign were cast.

"Normal, rational Iowans who had rigorously avoided politics for the entire previous year looked up and said, 'He's weird.' And they looked back down, and Howard Dean disintegrated," Gingrich said.

At the same time, he said, any candidate who dares to change position on an issue during a two-year campaign risks being labeled a "flip-flopper" -- an epithet used to undercut 2004 Democratic nominee John Kerry and one being waved at current Republican hopeful Mitt Romney.

"You begin to trap people," Gingrich said. "As the campaigns get longer, you're asking a person who's going to be sworn in in January of 2009 to tell you what they'll do in January of 2007, when they haven't got a clue -- because they don't know what the world will be like, and you're suggesting they won't learn anything through the two years of campaigning."

"For the most powerful nation on Earth to have an election in which Swift Boat veterans versus National Guard papers becomes a major theme verges on insane," said Gingrich, referring to 2004 campaign controversies that targeted Kerry and President Bush. "I mean, it's just -- and to watch those debates, I found painful -- for both people. They're both smarter than the debates."

He blamed the pressures of sound-bite campaigning for the recent controversy over Sen. Barack Obama's declaration that he would dispatch U.S. troops to Pakistan to attack leaders of the al Qaeda terrorist network if Pakistani authorities fail to get them.

Gingrich said the Illinois Democrat, one of his party's leading presidential candidates, "said a very insightful thing in a very dangerous way." But the response, he said, "was to attack Senator Obama, not to explore the underlying kernel of what he said."

Gingrich's answer to the problems would be to get rid of limits on campaign financing, which he said have made the problems worse by requiring more individual donations to meet the same goals, and to stage a series of "dialogues" among the major-party candidates -- once a week, for 90 minutes, for nine weeks before the elections.

Candidates would pick the topics, and their answers would be uninterrupted "except for fairness on time," he said.

"After nine 90-minute conversations in their living rooms, the American people would have a remarkable sense of the two personalities and which person had the right ideas, the right character, the right capacity to be a leader," he said.

Gingrich, who has long billed himself as a visionary, led the Republicans who captured both houses of Congress in 1994 elections. National polls in July ranked him fifth among current GOP contenders, with average support of 7 percent, according to a CNN poll released Monday.

Gingrich stepped down as House speaker in 1998, after Republicans lost seats amid the drive to impeach then-President Bill Clinton over allegations that he lied under oath about a sexual relationship with a White House intern.

In March, Gingrich acknowledged he was having an affair of his own around the same time. He insisted he was not a hypocrite because Clinton was not impeached for the affair -- but for lying about it.

The Senate acquitted Clinton the following year, and his wife, former first lady-turned-New York Sen. Hillary Clinton, is among the current Democratic front-runners.

Not even slightly out of context, unless you can find some millimeter of difference between the war on terror as it is being fought and some idealized, but nonexistant battle. nice try.

Riiight. And all the hyperbole about illicit sexual affairs coming from the Republicans while Newt, Henry Hyde and Vitter were (actually) screwing around was something they were unaware of and saw no need to rebut. Lame.

Newt was correct, clinton was impeached for lying while being investigated for sexual harassment

Wrong is wrong, but there appear to be different degrees of "wrongness". In all the cases listed, a wife was "wronged". Apparently the difference in the degree of wrongness has something to do with political party.

How can this be?

How does one define "fidelity"? How does on define "morality"?

So, am I to conclude that it is OK to stray as long as you do not lie about it?

Seems to be something wrong here. One can do anything he or she wishes as long as they do not lie. That will be news to a lot of people serving time!!

it's all about context Bob. In Divorce Court, both men would be treated equally: they both cheated on their wives. In both the Court of Public opinion and Courtroom of the Grand Jury, Clinton lied which is an impeachable offense. Gingrich was just smart enough not to get caught, not to lie. Both men are brilliant; neither is fit to serve the American Public. We need better from our Politicians and it's long past time we stop justifying bad behavior.

Fred Thompson--->Lobbyist--->Corrupt

Newt Gingrich--->Cheater--->Corrupt

If you were trying to make a point, using the disingenuous approach is not in your best interest.

You surely remember the, "it was his private life" arguement? That rubric now seems to be applied like political spackle by my friends on both the right and left.

Hawk:

I truly think that wronging another person deliberately should have consequences. I was not trying to be disingenuous. Perhaps I have an overdeveloped sense of people and their motivations. To some, a lie is harmless even if it harms others.

I see no difference in the effects of the two individual's actions. Their motives are irrelevant to me. Their actions are what counts. Others were hurt.

Shaun:

Thanks for the response. I agree that neither are really qualified for high office. The problem is that we do accept bad behavior, not only from our political leaders, but from others in positions of power. "Anything goes, just don't get caught." That is just wrong and sends a terrible message to the next generation. Nothing will bring a civilization down more than rot from the inside. Forget the outside effects; we will do ourselves in.

I misread your intent...I allowed my dislike of political polarization to intrude and should not have subscribed that motive to you.

I agree with your assessment of consequence but will say that, as always, the cover-up is always worse and should multiply the severity of consequence. The two individuals actions were different once caught...and the severity of the punishment fairly meted.

I do, however, believe in redemption, in recovery from poor judgement...without that avenue, I am still in irons.

The very definition of out of context, assuming a working understanding of the term.

Perhaps if you go herehttp://forums.pelicanparts.com/off-topic-discussions/361151-newt-gingrich-offered-without-comment.html and listen to a clip of the speech in question, if I am not mistaken, courtesy of Shaun, you would understand more completely. If you are pressed for time, he made the phoney war on terror comment during the speech under discussion, to these people very same people.

Remember the Dems' campaign commercial from about 10-11 yrs. ago where they played a clip of Newt saying "Medicare will wither on the vine."? I was at the press conference where he said that and that clip was soooo taken out of context that it totally changed the meaning. Newt was talking about offering seniors other private insurance options BUT also letting them stay in Medicare if they liked it better. Then he talked about all the waste, fraud and abuse in Medicare and how much better private insurance would meet people's needs, cost less and the gov't. would still pick up the tab. He said as private insurance became more popular, Medicare would "wither on the vine". Well, the Dems immediately took that soundbite and tried to claim Newt wanted to kick all seniors out Medicare and let them fend for themselves. Nothing could have been further from the truth. But take one of his soundbites out of context and you can make it means all kinds of things.

Watch the speech in question from the other Newt thread.

<object width="425" height="350"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/sN9cqtJTvF4"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/sN9cqtJTvF4" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="350"></embed></object>

Absolutely out of context. He means that people like you, techweenie, lead the charge in setting a tone that makes fighting an absolute war impossible. The military effort is commendable, but ideally the threat should be fought on more fronts.

Typically techweenie.

In this case, clinton wronged, I think it was Jennifer flowers, was being investigated for sexual harassment, then not only went on TV and lied to the American people, but he also [B]lied[B] to a Grand Jury, which is what he was impeached for and let us not forget, more than jennifer flowers had come forward. If Newt had been being investigated on charges of sexual harassment and acted the same, your point might be valid, but it didn't so it isn't!!http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1186717226.jpg