Do we really want another American apologist in the White House? This from the W$J (Wall Street Journal):
Hear Dr. Paul on the subject of the 9/11 terror attacks—an event, he assures his audiences, that took place only because of U.S. aggression and military actions. True, we've heard the assertions before. But rarely have we heard in any American political figure such exclusive concern for, and appreciation of, the motives of those who attacked us—and so resounding a silence about the suffering of those thousands that the perpetrators of 9/11 set out so deliberately to kill.
Man of letters and economist Thomas Sowell writes a more objective piece about Newt than I have read in quite a while. In light of Obama's European Socialist thinking Sowell addresses the tabloid thinking of many so called conservatives who attack Gingrich:
Against this background, how much does Newt Gingrich's personal life matter, whether we accept his claim that he has now matured or his critics' claim that he has not? Nor should we sell the public short by saying that they are going to vote on the basis of tabloid stuff or media talking points, when the fate of this nation hangs in the balance.
When comparing Gingrich to Romney Sowell opines:
Romney is a smooth talker, but what did he actually accomplish as governor of Massachusetts, compared to what Gingrich accomplished as Speaker of the House? When you don't accomplish much, you don't ruffle many feathers. But is that what we want?Can you name one important positive thing that Romney accomplished as governor of Massachusetts? Can anyone? Does a candidate who represents the bland leading the bland increase the chances of victory in November 2012? A lot of candidates like that have lost, from Thomas E. Dewey to John McCain.
Ann Coulter, who loathes the demonic mob, recently let that demon in when she, along with other mainline conservatives took on the bash Newt mantra. They now sadly look like the very liberal pundits they so vehemently despise. Master of pen eloquence, Peggy Noonan, basically implies that Newt disturbs her. This is the same woman who inferentially endorsed Obama as a sort of political breath of fresh air. Excuse me! Newt disturbs you. Many might feel a little frightened at the mindset that deemed Obama a fresh start. Yes, Newt has infidelity issues. Yes, he throws bombs. But, most take him out of context. He thinks outside the box. That bothers cultural prophets like Coulter and others who can brilliantly read the tea leaves yet, fail to comprehend a blueprint. Newt Gingrich majors in blueprints, not predictions.
And, proof is in the pudding. Mr. Gingrich was the last practical CONSERVATIVE to LEAD congress into some formidable changes. Thus, impelling President Clinton to move right. Perhaps before conservative hormones drive them to despair they ought to take an objective look at Newt's 21st Century Contract With America. I defy anyone to watch the presentation below and label this man a left wing progressive as many, including Glenn Beck, have done.
Conservative pundit Brent Bozell, makes some salient points concerning this hate Newt phenomenon when he opines:
It brings us back to Angelo Codevilla’s piece last summer in The American Spectator on “America’s Ruling Class.” What Codevilla called the “country class” – the party of freedom, as opposed to a “ruling class” that resents the country’s input – has rarely captured the GOP flag. The GOP rulers sabotaged Barry Goldwater and ultimately were stuck with Ronald Reagan. Contrary to quaint historical rewrites, they were not in his camp, and instead bogged Reagan down with establishmentarian deal-makers and principle-shredders.
The country class is demanding the GOP choice be independent of the GOP establishment and confrontational with the radical Left. It is why both camps are now united in their desire to tear this man down. He is a threat.
This blogger is greatly disappointed with conservatives whose myopic vision for America seeks to destroy a true creative conservative genius.
