The creative zombie Newt Gingrich speaks predictably, condescendingly, woozily, at the fraternity bake-off called CPAC. Gingrich uses the words "left," "socialist," "destructive," "American values," as if he is trying to remember how to get the attention of the unwashed. Gingrich is a mossy statue talking about the days when he was a wannabee statue. One explanation for why the Republican Party cannot recover. ". . . we are now in a struggle over whether or not we are going to save America . . . I believe the most decisive way to defeat this secular socialist machine is to slow the debate down . . ." Incoherent, delusional, unconvincing, harmless, impotent. More inspiration from the Living Dead GOP, rehearsing for a new-built wax museum annex.
Brief
Wax Speaks
4 Comments
Leave a comment
I don’t see one thing substantive in John’s criticism of Newt. All I see is emotion, culminating in put-down. Why do we insist on trashing our own? Do we have to agree with everything every one of them says - like the Dems agree with their stuffed shirts and empty skirts? No. But we also don’t have to trash them (the way Democrats trash us).
Non-Democrat Party hacks truly are an odd lot. We trash the likes of Limbaugh and Palin in public; then we turn on our radios and listen in secret. We disparage Palin. We say she’s “clearly unqualified”. Does that mean that Obama was qualified to lead our nation? Is Biden qualified? Pelosi? Reid? Why does the question of qualification never come up about Democrats? Is Al Franken qualified to be a U.S. senator? Is he even qualified to be a talk show host? Not by his ratings. So what’s the deal with Palin? Didn’t she run one of these 57 (sic) states, no less – and not into the ground, like some former governors (of CA, NY, VA and NJ)?
What are we really talking about? Electability? Would Michael Moore vote for a Palin? No. Would Sean Penn? Whoopi? Rachel? Clooney? No. No. No. No. Would The New York Times or the Huffington Post ever consider endorsing any Republican – no matter what he or she says? No.
So there you have it. Our candidates do not have to be acceptable to the libs. They have to be acceptable to us. I happen to believe that we still outnumber them despite the big noise they’re capable of making. And I’m not the only one. Democrat lawmakers themselves are running for the hills. If they were confident, they’d stay and savor their advantage. Maybe all those so-called conservatives (in name only) who are so quick to disparage our own should gracefully duck out and take a powder. Watch from the sidelines and keep their traps shut.
There’s more at stake here than party politics. Newt has it exactly right. America is in danger. It may already be too late. I happen to think not. But one thing is for damn sure; it soon will be too late if we don’t stop dicking around.
http://peterkoelliker.blogspot.com/
I understand where John is coming from on this one. It's like weekend at bernies, wheeling the corpse around. Newt's time has passed and to be honest, I am not sure he's right. Honestly, I think it would be better for the Tea Party to emerge as a replacement for the GOP, but alas, we'll get a repeat of 2000 and the Tea Party will be co-opted and thrown under the bus when it is convenient like the socons. The GOP is the Whigs right now. IS the narrative we are the ones to save america? It's a little hubristic at this point. How about I've got better ideas and this is why they will work. I'd like to see and read John's appraisal of Beck's ending keynote. I thought it was very good. The comparison to the depression of 1920 and 1930 was excellent, as was the description of the statue of liberty. Glenn knows his history, as does JB.
As far as Palin goes, while she has more executive experience than Obama, she's still not there yet and I tend to distrust people who try to appeal to me on charisma rather than reason. I get the same feeling with politicians as I do with car salesmen. So, what I am saying is that she's as much a product of the cult of personality as Obama, except she's on our side. It's ain't good enough for me. What say you Mr. JB?
I agree with Peter. I made the following comments earlier but apparently didn't hit submit at the right angle:
I like Newt, but like so many others, he is damaged goods. If his goal is to rally the troops, fine, if he aspires to high office, not so much.
There is room at all levels for the debate to take place, but I hope those who are going to lead us back to fiscal sanity are younger, fresher, and still waiting in the wings.
We may yet have to let the lunatics (on the left) wreck the place a bit more before sanity prevails. The world is looking more and more like an Ayn Rand novel. All we are missing is a true John Galt.
Did not Barack Obama say in his campaign that he was out to 'fundamentally change America'? People then did not want to believe that he did not mean to merely pass laws, he did truly want to change the country.
With the failure to pass the President's key proposals, the Left now says the country is 'ungovernable' and blames the system, instead of the failed politicians. Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton governed. Jimmy Carter and Barack Obama didn't. But is the 'blame the system' message a means to take down the system? Will the liberal ends justify the means of tearing down the current system and replacing it with something more amenable to their agenda?
Before the election I told several liberal friends of my fears that Obama was too much like Chavez. Nobody called me crazy. No one even said I was wrong. Lose the House and the Senate to Republicans in 2010. Don't get health care or cap and trade and what ever else passed. Possibly suffer a major terrorist attack on our soil. Respond by dissolving Congress (obstructionists) and rule by the decree of the 'Council of Advisors' (Czars). Postpone the 2012 elections. Hold a Constitutional Convention which tears up the current document and rewrites a new one from scratch. My son, former Sgt in the US Army, says he and his AR-15 say 'Hell no!'
Am I crazy? Maybe it makes a good script for Mr. Batchelor to work up if he wasn't so busy trashing those to his Right. At least now they can't call the film a campaign contribution.