I’ve been quiet of late. Between work and the fact that I just have not been interested in commenting on the news, blogging has just not been a top priority. But now I feel the need to weigh in.
I watched the FoxNews Sunday with Chris Wallace interview of former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich this morning. The transcript is available here. There are a few things I’d like to highlight:
I’ve warned all last year that I suspected we were drifting into a catastrophic defeat. I don’t see any other way to read ‘06 except it was a defeat.
And if we don’t have a serious, open discussion of where we are, I don’t see how we’re going to change.
Just take this week. An American with tuberculosis shows up at the border. We’re in the middle of a debate over immigration and controlling the border. He shows up at the border. The computer says do not let him enter and only deal with him in a hazardous suit.
And the border patrol currently is so ill-trained, or the immigration service is so ill-trained, that the guy lets him in — looks at him with his eyeballs and says, “you know, I don’t think he looks sick,” and lets him in.
You learn that there are three illegal terrorists in New Jersey who were in the U.S. for 23 years illegally, intercepted by the police 75 times in the last six years, and it was never indicated that they were here illegally.
You go through this list. You say to yourself this government — I mean, not just the president. This is not about the presidency. The government is not functioning. It’s not getting the job done.
[...]
If you were at 28 percent, 29 percent, 30 percent approval, and if things aren’t working, and now you have a fight which splits your own party — and this immigration fight goes to the core of where we are.
[...]
The base of this party is looking up going, “What are we in the middle of — why are we ramming through an omnibus Teddy Kennedy bill, and attacking Republicans who criticize it, and calling us,” for example, as one senator did, “bigots, when all we’re saying is this government couldn’t possibly implement this bill?”
Speaker Gingrich brings up some very important points in this interview, many of which are very important to explore. The government, under the command of the Bush Administration, is increasingly appearing incompetent. From Katrina to the problems in Iraq, to this TB man, the government simply isn’t performing at the level that this country needs. President Bush may not be fully at fault, but it is under his leadership that the government has become derailed, and for that reason his actions are being perceived as the definitive explanation for government failure. Such perception is clearly reflected in the low approval ratings of both the Congress and the President.
Gingrich says that we need a sort of repeat of the so called 1994 “Republican Revolution” which he himself lead. While I was in second grade during this so called ‘Revolution,” I still understand its significance. I further understand the implications it had and agree that such a strong, pointed, united and agenda-driven approach is exactly what we need, but I must ask: who is going to lead this revolution? Gingrich? I just don’t see how he, considering the baggage he brings and the vitriol aimed towards him from all of the Left and some of the Right, can lead this march into Washington. Rudy? No. McCain? No. Romney? No. Who does that leave?
Mike Huckabee seems to be a clear cut, true ‘red’ candidate, but people just don’t seem to be as excited about him as I am. Fred Thompson has the sort of excitement, but many political pundits, including Charles Krauthammer, point out that much of this energy could erode quickly if Thompson does not meet the high expectations that have been set up for him by Republican voters pining for a Reaganesque candidate.
It seems to me that, without this inspiring, exciting, ‘true red’ Conservative candidate to unite the base and provide the sort of resolve needed, the Republicans could face a serious defeat in ‘08. For the first time since I started paying attention to politics, I am worried about the prospects of a Republican victory. Even more disheartenting, though, is a Republican victory by a sort of semi-RINO type candidate (I.E. Rudy, McCain, Romney) that will further deepen the divide that has become increasingly apparent since the start of this immigration debate. President George W. Bush may not be the death of the party, as some have suggested. Even the immigration reform proposed by President Bush may not do it. But a Presidential victory by any candidate that cannot move the party in the same manner as Gingrich described today may do just that. Said simply, the Republican Party is in need of a new leader. Maybe the best thing that could happen to the party is a 2008 Presidential loss. Still that question remains, would that be best for America?
The answer, as far as I am concerned, is I simply do not know. The Democrats are running on a platform of change, but I do not think that such change will take place. If the 2006 Democratic Congressional victory offers any clear indication, a Democratic victory by any in the current power structure, such as a Hillary or Obama victory, would not produce a shift from the policies of George W. Bush, despite the rhetoric, but would, instead, force the Democrats to fund the troops, continue the war and ignore the far-Left, such as MoveOn.org. But is that a chance that America should take, or will take? I suppose we shall find out in just about 18 months from now.
