In My World, This Man Would Be the Vice President in 2008
I find it impossible to disagree with Newt Gingrich.
COLUMBIA, S.C. – Ex-U.S. House Speaker Newt Gingrich said Wednesday that the thought of California Rep. Nancy Pelosi becoming the next leader of the House and being third in line to the presidency is frightening.
“The prospect of her bringing San Francisco values and a whole attitude on foreign policy that is, I think, an attitude of weakness and appeasement and surrender, I think, would be a disaster for the country,” the outspoken Republican said.
So, the whole “San Francisco values” thing is definitely shorthand easily understood by folks on the right, but that’s his target audience. We out here in conservative-land know very well what he means by that.
What’s more important is his rather plain language about how terribly unserious and dangerous Pelosi’s stance is for all of us.
That said, I think Gingrich would make an excellent Vice President, not only because he has no problem confronting his opponents but also because he is one of the few truly brilliant minds in national politics.
Related posts:
- And Now….The Vice President.
- Newt for President. Seriously.
- It's Vice President…Ummm…Who?
- The Early Sundries Shack 2008 Presidential Poll
Category: Fighting the Islamists, Political Pontifications, President George Bush
About the Author (Author Profile)
Subscribe
If you enjoyed this article, subscribe to receive more just like it.
Newt's problem is his personal life; that shakeup divorce. How is he going to fare when the news of his less than respectable treatment of his wife and his adultery come up?
That news has already been out there and hashed over. The Dems used it pretty much to death every election after 1994 or so.
To be honest, a Giuliani/Gingrich ticket would be a world-beater. Anytime a Dem brought up the "morals" issue, both of them can ask quite honestly why it's an issue now when it wasn't an issue when the adulterer was named William Clinton.
The Democrats might not care — we don't expect much from them — but what about us? Is it really a non-issue? Then why did we care when it was Clinton?
I really did not care at all with Clinton. What I cared about was that he 1) did it in the Oval Office, "on the job", which compromised him (and, by extension, us); 2) that, when he was confronted about it, he lied through his teeth repeatedly; and 3) that he liad about it under oath in a civil case, which got him disbarred.
Look, if someone wants to break their marriage oath, that's a matter for the husband, wife, and God. I am sure that an adulterer can be more than a capable President. What I do want, though, is some discretion and, should it become public to any degree, honesty about it.
But that's what I'm saying: if you can't trust a man to be honest with his own wife, of all people, then how can you trust him to be honest with anybody else?