Interesting piece today in the Washington Post (by our old friend Bob Woodward) describing Newt's troubles with the Republican establishment, specifically the 1990 budget deal between George Bush and Congressional Democrats. Woodward's thesis is that Gingrich was an uncompromising, emotionally unstable jerk who had a problem with authority and betrayed a sitting President thereby facilitating his eventual defeat. Perhaps, but if the 1990 version of Newt were running for President, I would be an enthusiastic supporter.
Compromise is overrated. Compromise is a politician's default position, not a leader's. Say what you will about Obama, Pelosi, Reed et al., when they had the power they didn't compromise. They have their policies and the opposition be damned. I respect that. Compromise is what happens when you have exhausted every possible avenue to winning. I think Maggie Thatcher described the Romney wing of the party exactly: "“If you just set out to be liked, you will be prepared to compromise on anything at anytime, and would achieve nothing. ” Amen.
Monday, December 26, 2011
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
3 comments:
C'mon Hammer, you don't really believe that. Presidents are leading the whole country, not just their party. Compromise is absolutely necessary--it doesn't mean a leader is just desperate to be liked.
Sally I believe exactly what I said. Compromise is necessary and inevitable oftentimes, but I don't believe in a dialectic approach to every issue. Core beliefs and values cannot be compromised. You can't cut the baby in half.
Compromise is a synonym for not having the courage of your convictions.
The Case for Newt Gingrich
http://spectator.org/archives/2011/12/28/the-case-for-newt-gingrich
Post a Comment