The guerrilla conservative
Scott Martin has noted that former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich has expressed an interest in leading the Republican National Committee:
-
Newt Gingrich is the Leader the RNC Needs to Take Back Congress
- The talk of former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich heading up the Republican National Committee is the best potential news I’ve heard in ages. He has said he would take the post if asked. I can just see the Clinton supporters now. The Democrat Party may look pretty flush right now, but I’ll take Newt’s leadership in a heartbeat over Howard Dean’s at the DNC.
-
Newt Gingrich has let it be known that, if Republicans want him, the former U.S House speaker is willing to serve as chairman of the national party and lead it out of the wilderness it’s blundered into.
The question is whether the 168-member Republican National Committee is open to the match.
“If a majority of the RNC thought he was needed, he would accept that appointment,” said Randy Evans’ Gingrich’s close friend and legal counsel. “He fully appreciates the urgency of the moment.”
- Although, if we’re being totally honest, I’d take Newt as head of the RNC over any living, breathing American politician. For those who don’t recall, Newt Gingrich single-handedly took back Congress for the Republican Party in 1994 with his highly successful Contract With America. He then proceeded to run into problems with his abrasive attitude toward those who disagreed with him and his condescending attitude toward those who weren’t as smart as him (ie, everyone). So he lost his power and left Congress. He was the most hated enemy of the left.
More at the link.
I have no idea if Mr Gingrich could duplicate the rise of the Republicans in the mid 1990s, a rise for which he was more responsible than anyone else. He led a form of “guerrilla conservatism,” and if it infuriated our friends on the left, what infuriated them the most was that it worked!
Our friends on the left — and Jason of the Delaware Liberal would certainly be one of them — have been most generous with their advice, telling us that Republicans, to become relevant again, must become more like them, must move to the left.
Well, that was the path that the Republicans of the 1960s and 1970s took, the go-along-to-get-along Republicanism of great guys like Robert Michel, Gerald Ford, Hugh Scott, Nelson Rockefeller and Everett Dirksen. Even one of Art’s favorite Republicans, Barry Goldwater, succumbed to this malaise in his later years. They achieved safe seats for themselves, but, like the Oakland Raiders’ offense, they were very inoffensive — and they insured for themselves a permanent minority status.
That’s a trap into which Mr Gingrich would never fall.
Who else would be better for the position? Who else has the record Mr Gingrich established? And who else would just flat annoy our friends on the left more?
Now, we could pick someone like Jim Gilmore of Virginia or someone else who was a good organizer, a good manager. But what we need is a fighter, a leader, and not a manager.
We’re facing at least two years, and quite possibly more, of Democratic domination; the last thing we need is go along for the ride quietly.
Jeff:
If you guys pick Gilmore you might as well kiss any chance at a majority goodbye. He was one of Virginia’s most incompetent governors, completely incapable of balancing a budget even during the late-90s prosperity, and remains unpopular even among Old Dominion center-right voters…
10 November 2008, 11:57 pmScott Martin:
Looking like Newt vs Steele. I think either would be a fine choice, but Steele’s editorial in the WSJ actually does a better job of making the case for Newt.
I’ll be giddy if Newt gets this. And we’ll retake Congress by 2012.
11 November 2008, 3:25 pmThe Cotton Wife:
Newt. He gets the liberals stirred up quite effectively.
12 November 2008, 10:43 am