Newt Gingrich Bashes Bush; Makes Dreaded Jimmy Carter Comparison
By Roth Posted in Archived — Comments (45) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
I suppose it's inevitable that what is probably being muttered privately among GOP insiders is now being aired a bit more publicly, but I have to say I was quite surprised to hear Newt Gingrich saying what he said in print.
Gingrich, though a man with more than a few flaws, is nothing if not one of the smartest GOP leaders around, a brilliant strategist, and a visionary of the highest order.
And in his comments that follow, it appears he may have committed one of the greatest sins: comparing George W. Bush to Jimmy Carter.
"He says that the Bush Administration has become a Republican version of the Jimmy Carter Presidency, when nothing seemed to go right. “It’s just gotten steadily worse,” he said. “There was some point during the Iranian hostage crisis, the gasoline rationing, the malaise speech, the sweater, the rabbit ... that there was a morning where the average American went, ‘You know, this really worries me.’
”He added, “You hire Presidents, at a minimum, to run the country well enough that you don’t have to think about it, and, at maximum, to draw the country together to meet great challenges you can’t avoid thinking about.” Gingrich continued, “When you have the collapse of the Republican Party, you have an immediate turn toward the Democrats, not because the Democrats are offering anything better, but on a ‘not them’ basis. And if you end up in a 2008 campaign between ‘them’ and ‘not them,’ ‘not them’ is going to win."
http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2007/06/04/070604fa_fact_goldberg
I think that Newt overstates things a bit here, but when you look at the polls and just anecdotally assess the mood of the country, it's hard to dismiss what Newt is saying here.
That said, methinks Newt better watch his back.
He may be overexagerating a bit, but he's right on the money. Bush & co. are selling conservatives and the rank and file Republican voters up the river with this immigration nonsense. Immigration is the straw that broke the camel's back, but when you combine this with Medicare Part D, McCain-Feingold, and No Child Left Behind, and the largest expansion of government and government spending since FDR, there isn't much we conservatives can hang our hat on here.
In 2008, we Republicans should take note of Sarkozy in France. Even though he was of the same party as Chirac, he ran as the "anti-Chirac". Republicans will need to run as the "anti-Bush" conservative to be victorious in 2008 and beyond.
“.....women and minorities hardest hit”
I agree with you in theory that all the major GOP candidates should run away from Bush, but I don't think that will play well with the GOP base - which represents a disproportionately large part of the GOP Primary.
Remember, GW is still clocking in at around 30% in the polls. That's the GOP base. Despite Iraq, Medicare Part D, massive government spending, and now the Immigration Bill, the base - for reasons that remain unclear to many - will stick with the President.
So, I think the challenge of threading the needle between distancing themselves from a GWB that a significant majority of this country thinks is toast and, at the same time, not infuriating the loyal GOP base that will stick by him no matter what, is not an easy task.
Not easy at all.
That will change. We expect it from the democrats but not our guy.
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
The issue isn't whether Bush has the right policy or not, but that when he does try to manage any of his commitments they go to shit. He was highlighting the fact that he has serious performance issues. Carter was bad, much worse than Bush was ever capable of even on crack. But if Carter is the worst Democrat who is the worst Republican?
Also think that in today's world Bush is the worst conservative president that I know of in the entire world. I would rather have Stephen Harper from Canada, Ron Howard from Australia, Sarkozy from France, the Eastern European Presidents, the German Chancellor, etc. I mean the entire world is trending conservative and we somehow are going liberal. Tell me how that can happen.
But if Carter is the worst Democrat who is the worst Republican?
Worst Republican in the past 100 years? Nope. 50 years? Nope. 25 years? Nope. He doesn't even make the list. I'm not a big fan, but of all the Republican Presidents in the past 50 years there was only one better (and even he had a lousy second term). Who was better? Bush I? Ford? Nixon? Eisenhower? I don't think so. All of those guys accomplished less (for our side, anyway) than Bush II did.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman
Promulgated the Eisenhower doctrine (pretty much a strategy of confrontation with the eastern block)
Oversaw a conservative economic policy, a Republican congress, and a balanced budget.
And had a rather successful resolution of his middle eastern crisis.
And finally he kept us out of Nam.
There was also that little matter of WWII but lets not bring that up.
You really need a re-examination of president Nixon's policies as well but thats another story (Domestically I will concede a disaster)
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
Ike was not particularly conservative. He was perhaps the original "compassionate conservative," though that isn't what he called himself... he preferred to talk about "dynamic conservatism." He presided over a big expansion of government. I can only imagine what he would have done in today's environment, when government is expected to do everything and everyone feels entitled to all kinds of free stuff. Oh yea, and he appointed Earl Warren as Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. Those are some very big strikes against him. Earl Warren alone would be very hard to forgive. We are still dealing with the aftermath of that blunder.
Nixon was an absolute disaster on the domestic front... many times worse than W is.
I'm no huge W fan, but I still rank him ahead of that crowd.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman
All of that is petty change compared to Iraq. That's been the huge albatross around his neck since late 2004.
And now immigration is indeed, not the straw, but the concrete beam that broke the camel's back.
The sooner the GOP can summon up the courage to repudiate GWB and all that he stands for, from his sneering lack of intellectual curiosity to his preppy social outlook, to the war in Iraq, the sooner it can start clearing up the rubble and rebuildning itself.
Not going to make the Conservative base denounce the War in Iraq. Might have happened if we were deciding whether to invade, but not while we are at war.
One thing Conservatives will sacrifice nearly everything to avoid is surrender/defeat in war.
"It's a book about a man who doesn't know he's about to die, and then dies...
...But if the man does know he's going to die and dies anyway. Dies, dies willing, knowing he can stop it, then...
Well, isn't that the type of man you want to keep alive?"
Karen Eiffel, Stranger Than Fiction
From Rich Lowry over at The Corner:
Iraq--the Coming GOP Collapse? [Rich Lowry]
Was talking to an influential Republican strategist who thinks if Iraq looks the way it does now in September, Bush will lose about 25 Senate Republicans on a bill with some sort of timetable for withdrawal.
http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=YTM2M2Q3MGZiYzMyYTUzYTg5YTgzYjl...
Barring things turning around dramatically in the near future, it looks and sounds like a number of conservatives will be wrapping things up.
Words are very important and I notice that you said "Republicans" not "Conservatives"
There is a difference.
"It's a book about a man who doesn't know he's about to die, and then dies...
...But if the man does know he's going to die and dies anyway. Dies, dies willing, knowing he can stop it, then...
Well, isn't that the type of man you want to keep alive?"
Karen Eiffel, Stranger Than Fiction
Clearly, there is a difference between "Conservatives" and "Republicans". Good point.
But do you really think IF (and it still is an "if" at this point) that as many as 25 Republican Senators break against the President and the Iraq War, that a significant number of them won't be "conservative" Republicans?
This is all a hypothetical, of course.
But the notion that many conservatives have not and will not break against this war is pure folly. It's already happened and will continue to happen as we go forward.
But I give him credit for telling the truth. Everything Bush touches goes bad.
George Bush was dealt a political hand so good that even Jimmy Carter, if he were a conservative, could have turned into a permanent and unbeatable Republican majority. Somehow, unbelievably, with one incompetent misjudged step after another, Bush managed to parlay that into a 30% reduction in the size of the Republican Party and he has set the stage for a Republican shellacking in 2008 that is going to make 2006 look like a victory year.
George Bush was dealt a political hand so good that even Jimmy Carter, if he were a conservative, could have turned into a permanent and unbeatable Republican majority.
The coordinated attack on the United States killing thousands of innocent civilians was a real stroke of luck. The recession that was already underway when he took office was a real stroke of luck. I totally see your point.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman
I am surprised Newt made the comparison (well maybe not so much) If you lived through the carter era you knew what bad was.
Remember what was happening due to carters handling of the country ?
You had militias forming.
Everyone was going survivalist. My neighbor in NYC had a stock of K rations.
Popular books. How to survive the great economic collapse. Variety of dollar collapse books. You get the picture.
We were pretty certain there was no tomorrow.
He may very well have surpassed Harding. Especially if he gets his way with this bill.
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
Hoover raised taxes and tariffs more than any othe peace time president and turned a deep recession into the Great Depression. Yeah, Bush is not quite there yet. Thank God Bush is done.
I believe Rudy is the anti-Bush, he will put fear into the minds of the Dems and will turn Washington into a GOP playground instead of a Democrat quagmire. I think Rudy would be wise to start rallying Republicans around a set agenda like the 1994 Contract with America. Rudy's the only guy out there that can both win back Congress and win the White House by a landslide.
I know the guys sux on social issues but, he's honestly the first living Republican to get me excited for voting for him rather than against the Democrat as in 2004.
I'm betting on Rudy, he just gets it and tells it like it is.
Let the guy speak on issues other than abortion, etc. You'll wish he was already in the White House.
As for Bush, he would have made a great Peace-Time President but, he's just not War-Time Presidential material. Even the tax cut was less in percentage term than the Kennedy-Johnson Tax Cut. Its really just sad, I know Bush means well, he just needs to wake up and bring back the George Bush of September 2001. Then, again perhaps that man died in Katrina. Bush has had more horrible things go down under his presidency that it surprises me that he hasn't just given up. The man's clearly depressed and trying to do what he thinks is the right thing. He's the kind of guy who likes being liked because he gets insecure around people that don't like him.
Its like the nice guy back in High School that when he does something embarassing will sulk and avoid talking to people that he does feel comfortable around. Right now Bush feels ncomfortable with the American people.
We love you and hold you in our prayers, George W. Bush.
Harding was dieing by a thousand cuts. Cronyism, scandals, and prosecutions plagued his administration.
Hoover isn't valid because what he was bad on, bush has been pretty good on. The economy and defense.
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
I think a lot of Democrats would be perfectly fine with Rudy as President.
Many of them voted for him when he was Mayor of New York City. And they agree with him on issues like abortion, gun control, gay marriage, balancing the budget, and crime prevention.
If it's a choice between Hillary Clinton and Rudy Giuliani as President, I think a sizeable percentage of Democrats wouldn't really care either way and view both candiates as ideologically similar.
This, of course, doesn't fit neatly into the Democratic and Republican partisan check boxes, but it is the reality.
If it's a choice between Hillary Clinton and Rudy Giuliani as President, I think a sizeable percentage of Democrats wouldn't really care either way and view both candiates as ideologically similar.
Ironic. I was thinking the same thing, except substitute the word "Republicans" for "Democrats."
I hadn't thought of it that way, but you're right.
For the life of me, I am struggling to identify a huge difference on policy between Hillary Clinton and Rudy Giuliani.
When comparing those 2.
Clinton is the obviously power-mad/power-hungry, ambitious egotists willing to sacrifice everything in the world to assure her rise to mastery of the Known Universe. Don't believe me? Try meeting the woman. Billy Clinton was never president. He was just her voicebox.
Giuliani is well, of all the things he is, the above is what he is not. And I think the voters will pick up on this.
"It's a book about a man who doesn't know he's about to die, and then dies...
...But if the man does know he's going to die and dies anyway. Dies, dies willing, knowing he can stop it, then...
Well, isn't that the type of man you want to keep alive?"
Karen Eiffel, Stranger Than Fiction
Caricatures may help when preaching to the converted, but your description of Hillary Clinton - regardless of what one thinks of her - is fairly unproductive and wildly unsubstantiated.
Both Rudy and Hillary have their detractors to be sure. And for every one person that describes Hillary in such hyperbolic terms, there is another who will describe Rudy in a similar fashion.
But for the majority of American voters - moderate Democrats, moderate Republicans, and Independents - there is very little difference between Hillary Clinton and Rudy Giuliani on substance.
Put differently: Hillary and Rudy agree on many more things than they disagree on.
And Bush is no Carter!
BTW, Newt lost his job in less that two years. Conservatives were pretty upset with him at the time.
Bush has done more damage to the conservative movement than any individual since FDR. I don't understand why more conservatives are not already angry about that, but clearly it's happening more and more.
Though I agree Bush has done damage to the conservative movement he is not alone in damaging the cause. Even before Bush was elected some of the same folks who ushered in a new conservative movement in 1994 were spitting in the face of conservatism in the name of electibility. For a time I believed Bush was willing to sacrifice the Presidency in order to do what was best for America, not necessarily the GOP and that was admirable. Now with "immigration reform" the claims are that this will "strengthen" the party. The GOP is now in favor of party over principle's and I for one won't contribute to that cause or mentality. We need leaders who are unafraid in the face steep odds and who are willing to stand up for what they believe and go down fighting. Granted we can't change anything out of power, but if we sell ourselves and abandon our convictions in order to get power what have we really accomplished.
"Cowards cut and run, Marines never do"
No.
Conservatives have done more damage to the conservative movement than any individual since FDR.
We wanted to believe he was a Conservative. We voted for him. We looked the other way as he and Congress spent like crazy and grumbled, but not enough to stiffen Congress' spine.
We kept thinking that he would change, that it was just political posturing, that he would come around.
He is exactly what he was when we elected him: Big Government, Social Conservative, soft on immigration.
We elected him, we didn't corral him, he did what he wanted.
It is our fault. All of it.
And we better learn this lesson before we jump on the Rudy/Romney/McCain bandwagon. All of these guys have their history behind them so you can see what's coming in front of them.
If you fail to REALLY LOOK, we will make the same mistake again and Conservatism will disappear as we know it. None of these guys will lead America to a more Conservative mindset.
Not one on them.
I would caution you that making everybody feel bad about picking Bush isn't very productive. We don't want to become "self loathing" conservatives.
But in principle, I'd say I agree, everybody wake-up and actually spend some time researching, learning, staying informed, etc. (What follows is a little cruel) I seriously want to scream everytime some douche gets on a forum like this and just says "Run, ______, Run", but if you even ask that person what they even know about the person they are backing and they haven't even checked his voting record, his speeches and statements, his passions, etc. They seem to think like its some American Idol contest or something, seriously wake up.
Sorry for being blunt, thats something that seriously bothers me.
I read this article and Newt just said publicy what many conservatives having been saying privately. He also mentions in this article that republican candidates should be running away from Bush-which I think most of them are.
Bush has been a failure in terms of conservatism. The illegal immigrant amnesty affair, which he is now selling to the public, was the final straw for many that wanted to give him a benefit of the doubt.
Michael Gerson, who was a close aid to Bush, wrote in the Washington Post this past weekend that those of us against the amnesty plan are nativist which is another term for racist. This is BS. Way to slam the people that have supported you.
None of the republican candidates vieing for President are going to be doing themselves any favor by latching onto Bush. When the president is at 28% rating that is Jimmy Carter territory and that is a scarey place to be.
This amnesty Kennedy/Bush bill just put the nail in Bush's coffin. He is completely a lame duck for the next 18 months.
unemployment, gas lines, Soviets on the march in Afghanistan and by proxy in Central America, embassy hostages in Iran and a botched rescue, taxes going up via bracket creep...
There's one and only one Jimmy Carter!
Jimmy Carter is by far the worst President of the second half of the 20th century.
My worst list 1901-present
1)Jimmy Carter
2)Woodrow Wilson
3)Herbert Hoover
4)Harry Truman
5)Lyndon Johnson
6)Richard Nixon
7)John Kennedy
8)George W. Bush
9)Franklin Roosevelt
10)Robert Taft
I think Bush is more Truman-like starting out frsh, gaining popular support early via WW2,getting bogged down later on in Congress and in the war abroad in Korea.
... because this will definitely divide the party between the "Bush Can Do No Wrong" segment and the rest of the base. And without a significant measure of unity we cannot turn the tide enough for us to at least keep the White House in 2008.
But Newt is right.
Bush is causing massive damage to the GOP.
And it's not so much that his decisions are wrong, it is that he does a p*ss-poor job of explaining/defending them and they are therefore easily undermined from within - like they constantly are by Democratic holdovers and other careerists at the State Department. Add to that his pathological dedication to the "New Tone" and he has basically hamstrung his own administration.
Never again should we ever countenance selecting a Republican Presidential nominee who places such a low priority on communicating with the American people and is so averse to confrontation with Democrats and their affiliates.
I have a lot more to write about this ... Hopefully I'll be able to do so soon.
George W. Bush: He's A Folder ... Not A Fighter.
There's a difference between saying the President is wrong quiet a bit because he doesn't have a conservative bone in his body, and saying he's as bad as President Carter was.
This kind of self-serving hyperbole causes me to have any interest in voting for him, even if he could somehow win the nomination.
Run like Reagan!
I don't think Newt is, as you suggest, "saying he's as bad as President Carter was."
Rather, I think Newt is (correctly) saying that the overall nation's perception of President Bush is comparable to the nation's perception of President Carter.
And I think both the polls that have had President Bush mired in the high 20% to low 30% for a good while, and the electorate decision to largely tune out President Bush underscore that striking similarity.
It's not so much a question of ticking off either president's respective accomplishments or failures. Rather, it's the overall mood in this country (I think I saw a poll this week that said only 20% of the country thinks we're headed in the right direction) during Bush and Carter's presidencies that is striking.
1970's Gas Line
I lived under Jimmy Carter, Jimmy Carter was a president of mine: GWB- you're no Jimmy Carter!
Newt is probably running, but that's NO reason to dispute everything he says!
http://OsiSpeaks.com or http://OsiSpeaks.org
With malice towards none, with charity for all, with firmness in the right as God gives us to see right.
...of "Thou Shalt Not Speak Evil of Thy Fellow Republican"?
-- Of course, it all comes back to God. --
He isn't even as bad as his father. His father has a resume that includes appointing Souter to SCOTUS, raising taxes, signing a whole lot of very bad legislation, and bailing out of Iraq, leaving the job unfinished. If you want to know why we are in Iraq now... it is because Bush's father did not finish the job when he could've done it at a much lower cost. It's pretty easy to start something then bail out. It's much harder to stick it out and try to accomplish something.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman
If you look at countless examples Bush has the right idea at first, but his physical management of those ideas and committments is horrible. He doesn't even think its his business to learn whats going on in the individual bureaucracies, campaigns, etc.
There will never be another Jimmy Carter, he was the worst the Democrats ever produced. Who was the worst the Republicans ever produced? I think it would be a very short list with Bush definitely on it.
In the entire world right now every single conservative leader that I know is better than Bush. Stephen Harper in Canada, Ron Howard in Australia, Sarkozy in France, the German Chancellor, the Eastern European Prime Ministers, and the UK Tory leader are all better conservative leaders. Every where in the world conservatism is on the rise yet in the U.S. we are trending liberal. Explain that to me.
In the entire world right now every single conservative leader that I know is better than Bush. Stephen Harper in Canada, Ron Howard in Australia, Sarkozy in France, the German Chancellor, the Eastern European Prime Ministers...
I'm OK up through here. (Debatable, but still OK.)
...and the UK Tory leader are all better conservative leaders.
But this is ludicrous. Despite what Nelson & Langley say around here, I think most of us think Cameron is horrible. Gordon Brown is debatably better. That's how bad Cameron is.
Saying the Cameron is better than Bush is a good way to send your credibility down, down, down...
I'll admit I'm not British, I am no expert on British politics. I have heard Cameron talk a total of maybe 3 or 4 times, the last time a couple days ago Cameron looked like he was getting beaten down hard by Blair. He is by no means an above average conservative(I also pointed out that I think Bush is a way below average conservative). I thought I heard from somebody that Cameron was doing better than his predecessor Howard(I think that was his name right), and I thought Howard was pretty damn good; his adds were some of the best I've ever seen. I'll say that I retract my statement that Cameron is better than Bush just because I'm going on a few details. I mean you try to get information on other countries leaders while keeping very updated on our own, and have a life at the same time its not easy. So I am going on the few details I've gotten from a few sources on these leaders.
After retracting on Cameron, I'll use this as a learning experience. Tell me in a long post what you all know about that guy--policies, oratary capability, flaws, etc. From what I can gather he seems to be a little adolescent of the big game he is now in. He seems to not be very decisive. He does seem to deal in the arena of Labours ideas instead of developing his alternative arena. But in his credit he is young. And Tories did awesome in the local elections a month ago and a few conservative pundits I read said that Cameron was who to credit, so that was the biggest thing on my mind for crediting him as being better than Bush.
You know the best part of this?
Regardless of whether you agree with Newt or not, he slid the knife in Carter's back.
All this roundabout talk of whether Bush is as bad as Carter must be eating the frayed lining of Jimmy's soul.
He's been pimping for redemption for the last unpteen years, North Korea, Peace prize, opening his oversized gums on every issue he can think of to cast GWB in a bad light and just as he's on the cusp of getting the world to see Bush as evil personified....an in instant, Newt reframes the perspective.
I'm not sure if it was planned but Newt managed to refocus everyone's attention on just how bad things were during the Carter years. By offhandedly comparing Bush to Carter, he re-calibrates the incompetance meter and it shows that Dubya has a long, long way to go.
Brilliant Newt!
Comes with very little political risk. He is the epitome of a lame duck President. He has virtually no political clout right now and is not likely to gain any in the near future.
This is probably just the first of many takedowns of this administration. Don't be surprised when all the candidates do the same because they don't want to be part of the group that the Not Thems are running against.
There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why ... I dream of things that never were and ask why not. - Robert Kennedy