Newt Gingrich Wednesday Night
I attended the Upstate Republican Party (a coordinated effort of the Greenville, Spartanburg, and Anderson Republican Parties) rally on Wednesday evening where Newt Gingrich spoke to a crowd of over three hundred enthusiastic Republicans. The enthusiasm warmed my heart, and if we can garner even half that energy on election day Republicans will return to Columbia in record numbers.
One thing we’ve always known about Newt is that he tells it like it is. One of the reasons Newt is so effective is that he knows how it is. Newt began his speech by addressing the Mark Foley situation in D. C. He absolutely condemned Foley, but reminded us all that twenty years ago, when faced with an eerily similar scenario, Democrats not only supported like offenders but applauded them in their caucus.
Newt then moved on to the war on terrorism, and set the scene of Nancy Pelosi becoming third in line as commander-in-chief. He recounted, in detail that only comes from intimate knowledge, the series of failures whereby the Clinton administration, including both Bill and the president, abandoned their responsibility to defend this nation.
The Speaker then discussed health care with an acumen only an expert can muster. He examined the government’s monopoly in the form of Medicaid by proposing analogous government takeovers of auto sales other consumer choices. It was funny, but it also reminded us of the difference between Democrats (mostly liberals) and Republicans (usually conservatives). The former think government is the solution, the latter think freedom is the solution.
Gingrich delivered the best speech I’ve heard in a while. If he’s not the smartest guy running (as officially as anyone is running right now) for president, then I’m waiting to see his equal. I’m disturbed with Newt’s own baggage, but for sheer intellect, guts, and plain speaking, Newt is a leader for conservatives in America.
October 6th, 2006 at 8:48 pm
Kevin
I am tired of Republicans running on “we’re not as bad as the Democrats were”. Dr. King said the church should be the “conscience” of our society. How can we do that if we owe our allegiance to one party? I am not talking about someone, like you, who has offered himself for office. You have to choose a party. In my opinion, the rest of us should examine all parties equally and criticize them when they stray. If I recall correctly, Newt resigned over sexual impropriety. Funny, he has been forgiven and restored, but Bill Clinton has not. As a Christian, I am commanded by the Bible to restore a brother who has repented (Clinton has).
As for the substance of Newt’s speech, it seems to be the same drivel. If Republicans are for less government, why has it grown so much under this administration? If Republicans are for cutting wasteful spending, why are there record deficits? If we must sacrifice during war, why are Republicans (and Democrats) loading a budget with pork like a “bridge to nowhere” in Alaska? If we are truly pro-life, why do we not criticize candidates that support exceptions for rape and incest? These and many more questions should be asked of all candidates. If not, we have chosen our side, and are going to suffer for it.
I am praying for you. May God guide you as you serve us.
V
October 6th, 2006 at 8:48 pm
Kevin
I am tired of Republicans running on “we’re not as bad as the Democrats were”. Dr. King said the church should be the “conscience” of our society. How can we do that if we owe our allegiance to one party? I am not talking about someone, like you, who has offered himself for office. You have to choose a party. In my opinion, the rest of us should examine all parties equally and criticize them when they stray. If I recall correctly, Newt resigned over sexual impropriety. Funny, he has been forgiven and restored, but Bill Clinton has not. As a Christian, I am commanded by the Bible to restore a brother who has repented (Clinton has).
As for the substance of Newt’s speech, it seems to be the same drivel. If Republicans are for less government, why has it grown so much under this administration? If Republicans are for cutting wasteful spending, why are there record deficits? If we must sacrifice during war, why are Republicans (and Democrats) loading a budget with pork like a “bridge to nowhere” in Alaska? If we are truly pro-life, why do we not criticize candidates that support exceptions for rape and incest? These and many more questions should be asked of all candidates. If not, we have chosen our side, and are going to suffer for it.
I am praying for you. May God guide you as you serve us.
V
October 8th, 2006 at 3:05 pm
Victor, I think you missed the salient points of the post to which you reply. Newt never intimated that “we’re not as bad as the Democrats.” His point was that Democrats’ righteous indignation at the Foley affair in light of their conduct during the Gerry Studds episode surpasses almost every example of political hypocrisy. Further, if you read the post closely, it makes a vital distinction between Republicans and Conservatives (and between Democrats and liberals). The two designations are not at all synonymous, and, in fact, one can easily see the distinction in Columbia. The Republicans that you note who have grown government, etc., are not conservatives but merely opportunists, i.e. those who want to remain in the majority.
October 8th, 2006 at 3:05 pm
Victor, I think you missed the salient points of the post to which you reply. Newt never intimated that “we’re not as bad as the Democrats.” His point was that Democrats’ righteous indignation at the Foley affair in light of their conduct during the Gerry Studds episode surpasses almost every example of political hypocrisy. Further, if you read the post closely, it makes a vital distinction between Republicans and Conservatives (and between Democrats and liberals). The two designations are not at all synonymous, and, in fact, one can easily see the distinction in Columbia. The Republicans that you note who have grown government, etc., are not conservatives but merely opportunists, i.e. those who want to remain in the majority.
October 9th, 2006 at 8:45 pm
I stand by my earlier comments. Newt should have been talking about the quick Republican succession of Speakers of the House when morality was nowhere to be found. Does anyone else see the hypocrisy there?
As for the Democrats “righteous indignation”, how about some from Republicans who seem only concerned that it may hurt them on election day. My Republican friends have not even mentioned this and do not appear to be concerned about it. Same reaction to the Abramoff scandal which includes Ralph Reed. Are we judging these by the same standard we judged Bill Clinton? (For the record, I never voted for Clinton and was in favor of impeachment. He has since repented, is a Christian, and my Bible says to restore him in those circumstances. He also seems to be doing God’s work through his Clinton Foundation.)
Liberal and conservative have both been so misused that they no longer mean anything. We need better, more descriptive, and more accurate terms.
October 9th, 2006 at 8:45 pm
I stand by my earlier comments. Newt should have been talking about the quick Republican succession of Speakers of the House when morality was nowhere to be found. Does anyone else see the hypocrisy there?
As for the Democrats “righteous indignation”, how about some from Republicans who seem only concerned that it may hurt them on election day. My Republican friends have not even mentioned this and do not appear to be concerned about it. Same reaction to the Abramoff scandal which includes Ralph Reed. Are we judging these by the same standard we judged Bill Clinton? (For the record, I never voted for Clinton and was in favor of impeachment. He has since repented, is a Christian, and my Bible says to restore him in those circumstances. He also seems to be doing God’s work through his Clinton Foundation.)
Liberal and conservative have both been so misused that they no longer mean anything. We need better, more descriptive, and more accurate terms.