No “Change” At CPAC: Gingrich Plays “Boogie Man” Politics; Advocates — Wow! — “Change” But Not Too Much “Change” - And, Of Course, Not Now…

From http://www.theamericanview.com/index.php?id=1018

No “Change” At CPAC: Gingrich Plays “Boogie Man” Politics; Advocates — Wow! — “Change” But Not Too Much “Change” - And, Of Course, Not Now…

Printer friendly

BIBLICALLY/CONSTITUTIONALLY-speaking, Newt Gingrich has no idea what real change is needed in our country.
By John Lofton, Editor

Like a still-ready-to-fight Japanese soldier coming out of a cave on Iwo Jima who does not realize World War II was over 63 years ago, Newt Gingrich, his steel-trap mind whirring at top speed, has looked closely at the political rubble which is the national Republican Party and the “conservative movement” and he has grasped the fact that there is a problem.
“Newsmax,” the shameless GOP cheerleader web site, reports that Newt has given ” a rousing speech” at the Conservative Political Action Conference in which he has called for - zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz - sorry - in which he has called for - a drum roll and cymbal clash, please - a - a - are you seated? - a - yaaaaaaaaaaaaawn — a conservative “declaration of independence” from the Republican Party!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Wow! Isn’t that exciting? Don’t you wish you were there in person to hear this? Oh, and Gingrich also warned that Republicans face a “catastrophic” election this year unless the GOP changes course.
Oh, my. This is almost too much. Gingrich, too, is now for - CHANGE! But, wait! Can a “conservative” - a REAL “conservative” — be for “change”? Probably not but who cares?! Now is not the time to nit-pick. Celebrate! Newt has called for “change”!
In his CPAC talk, Newt said: “Every person who cares about the conservative movement and every person who cares about the Republican Party had better stop and say to themselves, ‘There is something big happening in this country. We don’t aunderstand it. We’re not responding to it. And we’re currently not competitive. And if we want to get to be competitive, we had better change and we had better change now.”

Yikes! Buffalo Springfield call your office! There’s something happening here. What it is ain’t exactly clear. There’s battle lines being drawn. It’s time we stop, hey, what’s that sound. Everybody look what’s going down. But, says Newt, whatever the “something big” is that’s happening in our country, we have to get in on it and be for it to compete - a strange idea of leadership it is that says: Follow the crowd.
OK. Now before Newt’s talk, I would have said, arrogantly, something like, Oh, really? — Every person who cares about the conservative movement and every person who cares about the Republican Party, should blah, blah, blah, huh? Well, that’s not me because I do not care about either the “conservative movement” or the Republican Party!
But, as I say, that would’ve been my reaction before Newt’s talk. Now? Well, now, and I’m not embarrassed to admit it, now I am swooning — by which I mean the second definition of swooning, which is to say (because of what Newt has said) I have entered into a (most likely permanent) state of hysterical rapture or ecstasy.
See? An old dog can learn new tricks. Me, I mean - though I cannot imagine who might be interested in watching an old dog do new tricks - especially rolling-over-and-playing-dead since an old dog just might, if he tried anything this strenuous, actually be dead. However, I could be wrong. Perhaps, somewhere, there is an old dog that (who? which?) might be interested in seeing another old dog do new tricks but possibly not. But, I digress - or maybe not. It was, after all, none other than President Harry Truman who said that if you want a friend in Washington DC, “get a dog,” or words to that effect.

“Newsmax” notes, and this is, as Arty Johnson used to say on Laugh In,” verrrrrrrry interesting, that in his “rousing speech” Gingrich declared: “Let me make very clear what I’m saying here. I am not saying there should be a third party - I think a third party is a dumb idea, will not get anywhere, and in the end will achieve nothing.”
Well, now. In an unwitting sense, Newt is correct. We do not need a third party. We need a real second party which we do not have because the two parties, in principle, are actually one party and are in agreement, in principle, on the major issues. But the most compelling reason why a “third party” would be and indeed is, “a dumb idea, will not get anywhere, and in the end will achieve nothing” is the fact that the Republican Party began as a third party and elected as President the murderous tyrant Abraham Lincoln! - whose birthday was February 12 - Happy Birthday, Dishonest Abe!
In addition, as Newt wisely perceives, to be for a third party would mean: You would actually have to do something and stop merely running your mouth about “change”; you could be seen as a “change”-extremist; you would have to practice what you preach; and to be for a third party would mean you could never, ever come crawling back to the GOP and, and your lecture fees would drop like a rock.
Furthermore, Newt is enough of a genius to know that while the Republican Party/conservative movement are in dire trouble, are losers, and have utterly abandoned any good principles they once had, “change” ought not to happen too fast. “Change” ought not to be embraced immediately, not now. This is why he told the CPAC’ers:
“I actually believe that any reasonable conservative will, in the end, find that they have an absolute requirement to support the Republican nominee for president this fall…As a citizen, I would rather have a President McCain that we fight with 20 percent of the time, than a President Clinton or a President Obama that we fight with 90 percent of the time.”
How true, Brother Newt! How true!! Yes, “change” is needed, as you say. Amen! But this does not mean, as you shrewdly realize, that there must be an abandonment of the Lesser-Of-Two-Evils strategy just because such a strategy is Godless, evil and a loser.

The “Boogie Man” lives! — “change” or no “change”! The our-guy-may-stink-but-their-guy/gal-stinks-more-so-vote-for-our-guy mantra must be, as you believe, Newt, must be “conserved” because you are a “conservative,” sir, and I salute you because you realize this.
As St. Augustine was said to have prayed at one point: “Make me chaste, Lord, but not now.” I mean, can you imagine what might have happened if Gingrich had called for “change” right then and there at CPAC? Why, many, perhaps most, of those bright-eyed, bushy-tailed young, idealistic “conservative” youths - at least those who remembered some recent history — might have stormed the stage, dragged Newt into the audience and stomped him to death on the grounds that his career reveals him to be part of the no-real-change, business-as-usual-problem.
As for Newt’s bit about fighting McCain 20 percent of the time versus fighting Clinton or Obama 90 percent of the time, well, I think we’ve got here — if I may quote Al Gore here briefly - is a “fuzzy math” problem. All differences are not qualitatively equal. For example, I know of nothing said by Clinton/Obama that comes even close to being as dangerous to our nation as warmonger McCainiac saying it’s “fine” with him if we’re in Iraq for 100 years. And, assuming what Newt said is true, I am alarmed that he is a citizen of our country. This I did not know.

Finally, “Newsmax” says that Newt “warned” his CPAC audience: “If we run a traditional consultant-dominated tactical Republican campaign, like we’ve seen in the last eight years, we will be defeated this fall, and we will be having a CPAC meeting next year talking about how we rebuild for the future with either President Obama or President Clinton in charge.”
Newt Gingrich - you, sir, are another Nostradamus! You have, again, fearlessly, and no doubt accurately, predicted the past! Excellent! Yes, Republicans will lose the Presidency. And they will lose it because they will run “a traditional consultant-dominated tactical Republican campaign” - the kind of campaign which caused the GOP to lose the House and Senate. And they deserve to lose because they are losers in every way.

P.S. Biblically and Constitutionally-speaking, Newt Gingrich has no idea what real change is required is our country. Put his name in our Search Engine, please, and read our articles about him, my interviews with him, and one radio interview with him.
A footnote: The “American Heritage Dictionary” defines “newt” as: “Any of several small, slender, often brightly colored salamanders of the European genus Triturus or the North American genera Notophthalmus and Taricha, living chiefly on land but becoming aquatic during the breeding season.” Hmmm. Perfect!

Discuss this article