Quotes of the day

posted at 10:50 pm on July 29, 2010 by Allahpundit

Yet of late, it sure seems as if the elites are failing to listen to the people–and the people, empowered by new technology, are rising up to smack down the elites as never before. And while the right has sometimes misread public opinion–see Harriet Miers, the early hesitancy in the Katrina relief effort, and the Dubai Ports Deal, to name just three–the left appears to have a tinnier ear. Just in the past few years, we’ve seen the failure of “comprehensive immigration reform,” the failure to close Gitmo, the failure to find an American location for the Khaled Sheik Mohammed trial, and, of course, the failure to understand the Tea Partiers and the townhall-ers.

So where will it end? Will Gingrich ride a populist Jacksonian wave into the White House? It’s hard to know the future, of course, and Gingrich isn’t the only opponent of the mosque and assorted p.c. positions. But it seems inevitable that we are going to see a showdown between the elites and the masses. And interestingly enough, these days, the MSM–those self-proclaimed speakers of truth to power–usually takes the side of the elite.

***
Full speech here.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2

Haven’t watched or heard him in several months. I found him to be extremely depressing.

sherry on July 30, 2010 at 12:14 AM

Nah, Sherry… He’s not trying to depress you. He’s trying to bring you to where you know you’re supposed to be. You know, the way you were raised, your foundations, principles, traditions of family, friends, siblings.

That’s all he’s trying to do.

Key West Reader on July 30, 2010 at 12:21 AM

Will Gingrich ride a populist Jacksonian wave into the White House?

Gingrich would love to think so, but no, the “masses” will not line up behind him. His day is gone. Polls show conservatives, Republicans and Americans alike think Gingrich’s proper place is in the past. We want new faces, new leadership. We want Marco Rubios and Chris Christies, not has-been’s trying to remain relevant.

American Elephant on July 30, 2010 at 6:00 AM

rickyricardo-Bingo, you win the prize. Why don’t you sing “Come Here, uhun-uhun” to Newt for us.

Jayrae on July 30, 2010 at 6:11 AM

again, newt is a nice guy, but it’s not gonna happen…

cmsinaz on July 30, 2010 at 6:12 AM

American Elephant on July 30, 2010 at 6:00 AM

agree…

cmsinaz on July 30, 2010 at 6:13 AM

Decision near on Maxine Waters ethics case

OT: via Politico….could we have a twofer in the ethics committee?

yeah, baby

cmsinaz on July 30, 2010 at 6:15 AM

It sure looks like Newt is serious this time about making a run for POTUS. He’s slimmer, tanner and talking the kind of conservative talk we all like to hear. Tan, rested and ready? But what about his love seat tet a tet with Nancy P. on AGW and his tour with the execrable Al Sharpton? I wonder. At least Newt will admit he makes mistakes as he has done about his evaluation of Obama before the election.

JimP on July 30, 2010 at 6:24 AM

People can smirk at Newt Gingrich all they want, but just a few short years ago these same people loved the guy. They thought he was great when he went to Washington with the Contract. They did not demand that Newt close the border, that was not even an issue. They did not demand that he reform all entitlements either. I think it would be nice if Republicans stopped sniping at each other and concentrated on the real opposition.

In fact, the only way someone like Angle is going to win in Nevada is if Republicans and independent conservatives stick with her and if you constantly carp on how bad guys like Newt are they just might not always do that.

Does that mean Newt will get the nomination? Probably not, but I do hope that whoever does get it can win a general election. I really do.

Terrye on July 30, 2010 at 6:30 AM

So where will it end? Will Gingrich ride a populist Jacksonian wave into the White House? It’s hard to know the future, of course, and Gingrich isn’t the only opponent of the mosque and assorted p.c. positions. But it seems inevitable that we are going to see a showdown between the elites and the masses. And interestingly enough, these days, the MSM–those self-proclaimed speakers of truth to power–usually takes the side of the elite.

Yes, but I think there is some disagreement as to who the elite is and who the masses are. Sarah Palin is part of that world, she is influential and she is wealthy but most of her fans would not consider her one of the elite, in spite of the fact that she ran on the national GOP ticket in the last presidential election.

The sad truth is someone like Sherrod will no doubt pass herself as a victim of another kind of elite. I mean after all, what better way is there to gain sympathy and win a lawsuit?

So, I think maybe the whole elite vs masses thing might be an oversimplification. I think people want honest competent government more than they want some populist revolution. Stability would be nice.

Terrye on July 30, 2010 at 6:36 AM

Newt is brilliant, but clueless. As far as I’m concerned, he’s another McCan’t, reaching across aisles only to be used by those on the Left. He can’t be trusted going forward to do the right thing.

He is damaged goods and can go Scozzafava himself.

Dandapani on July 30, 2010 at 6:39 AM

I can see by the time on comments that HotAir was broken everywhere. I thought it was just me.

Cindy Munford on July 30, 2010 at 6:43 AM

To Dandapani:

Agree 100%.

mixplix on July 30, 2010 at 6:45 AM

I watched the whole speech yesterday, live, from AEI. While Newt makes a lot of good points, it was all “old news”, stuff that Pam Geller and Robert Spencer have been saying for years. He’d make a good senior policy adviser in the Palin administration.

JimK on July 30, 2010 at 6:57 AM

I have met Newt and I didn’t like him personally.

However, I don’t need to like a leader to follow thier plan. All I know is that I would like Ryan and Gingrich to write the plan and the plan to be followed.

Call them Captain of the football team and Head Cheerleader, but they are leaders and they make great plans.

I like Palin, Romney and others, but they have opinions on issues, but not comprehensive plans. I also like Jindal and Christy, but they have jobs to do. But I will be ready to support them the future. (Christy, watch the blood pressure, we need you around for 20+ years.)

barnone on July 30, 2010 at 7:28 AM

And while the right has sometimes misread public opinion–see Harriet Miers, the early hesitancy in the Katrina relief effort, and the Dubai Ports Deal, to name just three

Two out of three.
Bush CONSISTENTLY warned New Orleans to get out of town and seek high ground as the storm approached, before it even hit. THEY REFUSED. Once roads were destroyed and power down with flooded airport, relief supply trucks were naturally delayed. All confusion was COMPOUNDED BY a state government run by Democratic idiots who were as unengaged in solving problems as Obama is in the White House today. That Governor and Mayor did everything they could to refuse cooperation with the Red Cross (sent away upon arrival) and National Guard. All the official Democrat efforts were spent making things worse in order to blame Bush for the troubles they compounded by not using common sense.

The Federal corruption of FEMA is innate regardless of party in power, buying ‘poisonous’ trailors in bulk for instance, contracted out to some insider for kickbacks…

maverick muse on July 30, 2010 at 7:37 AM

Do As You Say.
Say What You Mean.
Mean What You Do.

The great edifice of big government was left to grow and grown while Republicans were in charge of the Congress. Welfare Reform was their only kudo, but wringing money from the military left us with two divisions at the lowest point of morale since the end of the Viet Nam conflict due to Congressional unwillingness to stop Clinton’s overseas adventures. Unwilling to confront the President, they took it out on the troops and that left us without the 10MD when 9/11 hit.

When will Congress uphold the promise of 1986 to actually close the borders to control immigration? Mr. Gingrich certainly did not carry through on that promise, nor made it a part of his agenda.

Confronting ‘terrorists’ is more than acknowledging terrorism as a ‘tactic’. If you identify it as a tactic you them must explicitly state the kind of war that it is being used in, which is not ‘terrorism’ but Private War, which our Founders, Framers and Presidents understood all the way up to Teddy Roosevelt. You cannot fight Private War in the same way you fight Public War, and yet no one wishes to come out and say that and, instead, wishes for ‘cultural dialogue’ and ‘support’. If you cannot clearly state the problem, then you will find no good solution. Afghanistan requires Public and Private War venues, and yet no one will say that, save, of all people, Ron Paul, which leaves that as my sole foreign policy agreement point with that man. Mr. Gingrich is part of the problem, not offering solutions in this venue.

Jackson got rid of the National Bank which stuck until Woodrow Wilson put it back into place, and then FDR piled more powers into the federal government that it was not designed to handle. Jackson wanted the common man protected from government supported institutions that could destroy the economy and put at risk the fruits of the common man’s labors. I do not hear great words about dismantling the Federal Reserve, SEC, Fannie, Freddie, Ginnie, Sallie, and fun money sinks like the Deptartments of Agriculture, Education and Energy. Those are the threats to our liberty from our government and Mr. Gingrich is unwilling to address them because he sees them as necessary and wants that level of government control in the economy. These threats do not need to be ‘trimmed’, they need to go, completely.

Newt Gingrich is no Jacksonian. He cannot lead as he promised, say what is meaningful, and lacking that he cannot do anything meaningful as he cannot conceive of it.

That is the problem with our politicians: too afraid to say what needs to be done, mean it and carry through with it to tear down this intrusive and tyrannical government that is now over-reaching all bounds. That is what needs to be put forward clearly, without reserve and without trying to sugar coat the message until it can no longer be tasted: bitter medicine must be agreed to up front. The sugar coated ‘nice’ Left now dissolves to leave us poison after the sugar is gone…you do not address the cavities in the teeth instead of the poison in the system. Yet that is what we get from Mr. Gingrich and his faction of tin ear elitists… we can address the need for fillings once the body is saved from harm, afterwards is making a corpse look nice to no good end.

ajacksonian on July 30, 2010 at 7:39 AM

Picture Palin ripping him in the debate. How does he respond to a female? Too strong and it turns off the women. Too weak and he loses.

Newt can’t have this effect on him.

Newt will not try to remove his testicles, so to speak.

faraway on July 29, 2010 at 11:48 PM

So instead of compelling arguments and detailed articulation of solutions for problems we hang our hat on the hope that people make a choice on whether Obama is chivalrous or not with no weight given to how she articulates her positions on policy.
Doesn’t seem like a good way to determine if either one is qualified.
We need to get over the bloodlust for a “rip to shreds” idea based on a couple of gotcha phrases and focus on looking for someone who really has a grasp of the details and a way to address the issues.
Maybe Palin can do that – maybe she can’t. But I’d much rather see that approach than a venue targeted to an audience more interested in the drama than the facts.

Bradky on July 30, 2010 at 7:41 AM

Fine. All of that requires resources. In the future, we will only able to marshall those resources if we have been very frugal in managing them. That means SEVERE reductions in overall government or SEVERE tax increases. Since government detracts from our productivity, we will be most productive with the least government. Funny, that’s also when we will be most free.

I don’t think Newt is a drastically reduce government kind of guy.

CC

CapedConservative on July 30, 2010 at 7:47 AM

I don’t think Newt is a drastically reduce government kind of guy.

CC

CapedConservative on July 30, 2010 at 7:47 AM

With the possible exceptions of Ron Paul and Sarah Palin, there are no reduce government kind of guys anywhere in the country that stand even a remote chance of getting elected.

Johnnyreb on July 30, 2010 at 7:54 AM

“*So where will it end?
“*Will Gingrich ride a populist Jacksonian wave into the White House?

No Way…As Reublican candidate for POTUS Newt the RINO Gingrich will guarantee a second term for Obama.

We should be culling the herd, sending the RINOs to the slaughterhouse not the Barn.
.

philly_PA on July 30, 2010 at 7:56 AM

So instead of compelling arguments and detailed articulation of solutions for problems we hang our hat on the hope that people make a choice on whether Obama is chivalrous or not with no weight given to how she articulates her positions on policy.
Doesn’t seem like a good way to determine if either one is qualified.
We need to get over the bloodlust for a “rip to shreds” idea based on a couple of gotcha phrases and focus on looking for someone who really has a grasp of the details and a way to address the issues.
Maybe Palin can do that – maybe she can’t. But I’d much rather see that approach than a venue targeted to an audience more interested in the drama than the facts.

Bradky on July 30, 2010 at 7:41 AM

I do believe you’ve been told this before…many times:
Read Sarah’s Facebook Notes, read her book(s), listen to her speeches and her Fox News interviews at PalinTV.com.
She talks policy, specific solutions for problems, etc.
Governor Palin is engaged while Newt and Mitt play “Me, too.” if they play at all.

Jenfidel on July 30, 2010 at 7:57 AM

It’s like calling a lie “Pravda” or calling a fascist state the “People’s Democracy.”

The American Enterprise Institute = Bush Republicanism = Big Business Socialism

But because their name has “American” and “Enterprise” in it, people think they’re conservative.

More Stimulus Please!!! “Into our coffers!” says AEI

AEI Says Stimulus Boosted Economy By 4%

http://www.tnr.com/blog/jonathan-chait/aei-says-stimulus-boosted-economy-4

dtestard on July 30, 2010 at 8:08 AM

Newt thinks too much. It prevents him from realizing he is one of the “elite”. Too much time in DC. Sorry. – CTSherman

I don’t forgive him for reneging on #10 THE CITIZEN LEGISLATURE ACT: A first-ever vote on term limits to replace career politicians with citizen legislators.

They rode into DC, guns ablazin’, looked around and said “Suwweeeet!” and forgot all about good ole #10.

Fallon on July 30, 2010 at 8:15 AM

We don’t need to support politicians that have lost touch with the people. We needl leaders that understand what reality is and will do more than spew rhetoric to get elected and then become what they have replaced. Newt talks the good fight, but it is just talk. RINOs and Blue Dogs are those who lie to get elected and stab you in the back when the polls are close.

volsense on July 30, 2010 at 8:23 AM

As far as sharia law…as in all other colossal socio-political blunders, Great Britain is happy to be leading the way…with Canada not far behind.

cynccook on July 29, 2010 at 11:12 PM

Really? Hadn’t noticed that myself – but then I only live in the UK. Obviously you have a better understanding of these things from your trailer in Hanksville, Utah….

callingallcomets on July 30, 2010 at 8:28 AM

Sorry, but when I think Newt all I see is a couch and an overly botoxed haggard spinster regurgitating LIES…do America a favor and stay on the couch Newt.

NY Conservative on July 30, 2010 at 8:53 AM

There have been a few blips along the way, most notably the global warming nonsense in league with Nancy P, but I could totally get on board with a President Newt Gingrich.

Buy Danish on July 30, 2010 at 8:59 AM

Jenfidel on July 30, 2010 at 7:57 AM

And if she can’t convey that to a national audience effectively it is all for naught.

Bradky on July 30, 2010 at 9:01 AM

Newt’s a brilliant thinker but he has uterly missed (in this speech at least) the most important threat by far.

The country has been infiltrated. The head subversive is in the White House. The country is on the brink of a total takeover.

What good is it to talk about a 3 pronged overriding strategy in the face of that. It’s like discussing a comprehensive insurance strategy while your house is on fire.

notagool on July 30, 2010 at 10:11 AM

There is simply too much asymmetry between the dazzlingly rhetorical showman of conservatism that Gingrich is on the exterior and the essentially institutional elitist he obviously is on the inside. Of course, even Reagan could not always perform according to his rhetoric, but there was a plainspoken accessibility and warmth about Reagan’s words and manner that dispensed him from the disillusioning effects of political compromise. But Gingrich is almost forbiddingly brilliant in his rhetoric; there is a showy, high-wire excess to Gingrich that betrays him. Also, a physical problem. His smiles are weirdly cold and insincere. And he doesn’t appear to have a muscle in his body — one cannot imagine him in any physical context other than dressed in a suit and talking in front of a dais. Something incomplete about him as a human being.

rrpjr on July 30, 2010 at 11:08 AM

Greek Fire on July 30, 2010 at 9:49 AM

Excellent! +++100

lovingmyUSA on July 30, 2010 at 11:13 AM

He is damaged goods and can go Scozzafava himself.

Dandapani on July 30, 2010 at 6:39 AM

LOL

By the way, does noone remember 1998/1999? Newt getting kicked out by his own? And the total media slaughter (tanter tantrum at the back of Air Force 1, etc) where Gingrich basically took all the critisism and never really fought back?

I think Newt is a brilliant thinker, but his handling of the media & overall appeal is poor. Very poor. I just don’t see him as a strong contender in 2012.

Norwegian on July 30, 2010 at 11:45 AM

Say what you want about Newt, but there is no one else on the Republican side I would want in a Presidential Debate with Obama.

He would tear him to shreds.

barrythrowslikeagirl on July 29, 2010 at 11:29 PM

Picture Palin ripping him in the debate. How does he respond to a female? Too strong and it turns off the women. Too weak and he loses.

Newt can’t have this effect on him.

Newt will not try to remove his testicles, so to speak.

faraway on July 29, 2010 at 11:48 PM

Barry is married to a strong woman and has a married life full of things to say to shred a woman so long as it isn’t Michelle.

Gingrich could certainly shred the hell out of Obama. That is Gingrich’s forte, debate and winning the debate. And he doesn’t rely on someone else coaching him on what the issues are and the history of Congress and the history of American policy domestic and international.

Newt is gung ho engaged, where Obama is cold and unengaged. Problem with Newt is that he’s a saboteur out for himself. As with Obama, it’s all about Newt. They deserve each other, malleable on statements that are always designed to please a particular crowd and have a temporary life expectancy. Anyone as intelligent as Newt Gingrich who would jump on Al Gore’s global warming bandwagon for personal profit knowing full well that it was all corrupted should never be a Republican candidate for Potus.

Sorry to her devoted fans, but Palin couldn’t best Newt in political debate. It would be interesting to watch. But there’s no way that Newt wouldn’t pick her bones clean. He not only knows so much more details of facts and who sponsored and signed every piece of legislation, and international figures’ responsibilities for global events, but he has a lifetime of experience in professional debate whereas she’s only really got started at the end of ’08 with Joe BiteMe Biden, and then a long furlough before doing her bit on TV.

maverick muse on July 30, 2010 at 11:56 AM

rrpjr
That doesn’t sum it up for me; and I don’t think I’d agree that he isn’t physically capable of enduring the stress in the Oval Office.

I certainly admire his ability to communicate succinctly. To say that anyone who knows what he’s talking about is untrustworthy is Maoist.

maverick muse on July 30, 2010 at 12:06 PM

I congratulate Newt for tackling radical Islam so well.

I’d have to listen again to catch the early business regarding keeping America competitive with India and China. If he stipulated HOW, it didn’t make an impression.

His focus was on Afghanistan. Whoever said that Newt was off because he didn’t mention illegal aliens, we only heard a clip. I would certainly like to hear what he’d be willing to do. Since Graham is for a constitutional amendment to abort automatic citizenship to any baby born in the US by non-citizen partents, Newt would likely join that parade. He WANTS the Tea Party support, just like everyone else who is not willing to support the Tea Party agenda but expects votes for not being a Democrat.

maverick muse on July 30, 2010 at 12:11 PM

maverick muse: I didn’t say he wasn’t physically capable of enduring the stress (I’m sure he’d probably thrive in it), I said he offers no physical context as a total human being, which voters generally require when imagining a president. Gingrich reminds me of comedien Dave Allen’s remark that he saw his body as a thing to carry his head from room to room. Gingrich’s physical blobness is kind of representative of the pale, pasty contour-less political insider, not an actual human being who lives and acts in a real world. Maybe a small thing, maybe not, but next to someone like Palin or even Obama, not favorable. We’re talking total electability here, right?

rrpjr on July 30, 2010 at 1:27 PM

maverick muse on July 30, 2010 at 7:37 AM

I wholeheartedly second maverick muse on challenging AP’s dig at the right on Katrina response, where AP phrased it “the early hesitancy in the Katrina relief effort.”

THERE WAS NO EARLY HESITANCY!!!

That Bush failed to defend himself against this charge was the undoing of his presidency. That was the moment the polls went south and he became a lame duck.

I remember following the news closely as Katrina approached landfall. New Orleans mayor, at Bush’s STRONG urging, finally ordered an evacuation a couple days before the storm. FEMA had the biggest response in history lined up ready to go the second the storm passed. Supplies were rushed in ASAP, and the Coast Guard immediately started rescuing people via boats and helicopters.

The military was not allowed in by the Louisiana governor to help until late Thursday (following the Sunday night storm). On Friday morning the military carried out a very impressive airlift of over 20,000 people from the Superdome and Convention Center to the airport for transport to Houston and other cities providing emergency shelter. What was Bush supposed to do. Break the law and send in the military without the Governor’s approval?!

The flooding of New Orleans overwhelmed the response effort, and there were definitely mistakes made in situational awareness and poor media relations.

But to state that there was hesitancy in the relief effort as a result of misreading public opinion insinuates that the Bush administration was sitting on its hands and had a lackadaisical attitude about response until it belatedly realized that the public was demanding a more robust relief effort.

Nothing could be further from the truth!

They took the storm very seriously, made preparations ahead of time, got overwhelmed with the magnitude of the storm combined with the flooding of an incompletely evacuated New Orleans, and got relief there as soon as they could. There are definitely lessons to be learned about how things could logistically be handled better in the future. But I think people grossly overestimate what government is capable of.

willamettevalley on July 30, 2010 at 3:04 PM

Said it before and I’ll say it again: Newt will make a great Chief of Staff or SecState for President Palin. Lest any of you think I am being sarcastic, I am not.

Either Palin wins in 2012 or this country goes down the tube thereafter because all the other big names, rebubs or dems, who will run are really progressives at heart, not necessarrily revolutionary progressives like what are in charge now but rather progressives light. I know Newt did a good job as speaker and slowed the growth of government but he did not even attempt, nor has any republican, even when they had congressional majorities, attempted to actually cut the size of government by defunding any unconstitutional departments or even by defunding PBS or NPR. Why, one might ask, because those who will run in 2012 with the exception of Palin and Huckabee are part of the educated and ruling class and big government is part of their DNA.

Palin 2012

Brown James on July 30, 2010 at 3:49 PM

Comment pages: 1 2