Gingrich Takes On Rush: Hoping For Prez's Failure Is "Irrational"

by zeet | March 8, 2009 at 08:45 am

180 views | 42 Recommendations | 14 comments

Newt Gingrich became the highest profile Republican yet to push back against Rush Limbaugh, saying on "Meet the Press" that it's "irrational" to hope for the President of the United States to fail.

"You've got to want the president to succeed," said the former House Majority Leader. "You're irrational if you don't want the president to succeed. Because if he doesn't succeed the country doesn't succeed... I don't think anyone should want the president of the United States to fail. I want some of his policies to be stopped. But I don't want the president of the United States to fail. I want him to learn new policies."

The remarks were an obvious shot at Limbaugh, even if the conservative talk show host wasn't named. There has been a brooding feud between Limbaugh and Gingrich over the future of the Republican Party that briefly erupted during the recent CPAC convention. Responding to remarks by Gingrich that "the era of Reagan is over," Limbaugh declared during his hour-long closing address: "Our own movement has members trying to throw Reagan out while the Democrats know they can't accomplish what they want unless they appeal to Reagan voters. We have got to stamp this out within this movement because it will tear us apart. It will guarantee we lose elections."

0 See all footage | View Slideshow

Share: email story | add to any | | facebook | stumbleupon

recommend This comment thread is now closed

Karen Hatter

at 10:16 on March 8th, 2009

Mr. Gingrich's history and stature or assumed status within the Republican Party may be meant to provide 'another voice' for others to rally 'round as the Republicans seem paralyzed when it comes to the mantra now being parroted by Rush Limbaugh, who is said to fire up the 'Republican base'.

There is a definite divide within the Republican Party, with some rooting for President Obama's failure, with others publicly stating the opposite, with all manner of qualifiers as they do so.

zeet

at 10:51 on March 8th, 2009

And we are still waiting for a sound person to emerge as the Republican leader, assuming responsibility and dignified collaboration with Obama to get us out of this mess!

Roy C

at 11:07 on March 8th, 2009

By a "sound person", do you mean genuine opposition or do you mean someone who agrees with you and Obama?

The republican party was destroyed by Bush, the son of the father, GHWB, a man who had no vision of where the US was supposed to go.

The "vision thing" was how he referred to it and said, "I will handle whatever comes up".

People without vision have lost their soul, and the Bush's real vision was the NAFTA, GATT, WTO vision of an economic world union that we are not ready for and don't want and that would have been fostered on us without transparency and accountabilty.

I predict that, given Maureen Dowd's recent "Stage of Fools" column, critical of Obama and his passivity in the face of 9,000 earmarks, that Obama may well drive a wedge between the two sides of the Democrat party. I predict that the more conservative "blue dog" strain will emerge victorious and rein in the George Soros modern loon lib section.

If the stimulus package only produces a temporary fix, the party will turn on Obama as his numbers dive.

Then, of course, both parties will be leaderless.

Until they both blow off the Wall Street free trade idol of money worship that they are both prey to, not a lot of good will happen.

zeet

at 11:13 on March 8th, 2009

Sound as in opposition to Rush, Steele, Coulter, Tom Delay, Palin, and Jindal (did I forget anybody?)

Hey! That's just about every Republican "leader" there is! Maybe Gingrich?

Roy C

at 11:21 on March 8th, 2009

That does not answer the question. You simply dismiss all the names you know about. I asked if a "sound leader" means one who opposes Obama or would a "sound leader", for you, have to agree with you and Obama just to be considered sound?

zeet

at 04:42 on March 9th, 2009

Obama is intelligent, well-spoken, visionary, and have a plan for America. That's "sound" in my book. Not one of the other names mentioned, come close.

Karen Hatter

at 13:20 on March 8th, 2009

Well, Zeet, I'm not sure how they line up by way of influence within the Republican Party but, how about Rick Santorum, Ken Blackwell and former 2008 presidential aspirant Alan Keyes, who was almost apoplectic in his delivery of his expressions of displeasure with President Obama?

zeet

at 13:32 on March 8th, 2009

I guess. But are any one of these really an obvious choice? I'd like to think of a Republican leader whom I would (and here I shudder;) on my darkest days agree with on certain issues, and whom I would respect for having a different World view than I, because he or she would be well spoken, intelligent, and valued America and We the People.
Yet no-one comes even close to that criteria for me - what about you?

Roy C

at 13:45 on March 8th, 2009

So, you finally answer the question.

Karen Hatter

at 14:19 on March 8th, 2009

Oh, no, Zeet, I was not offering those mentioned as possible leaders as possessing any qualities that are mentioned here.

I was merely adding to the list of those who are recognized as representative of 'voices' within the Republican Party, (You'd asked if you'd forgotten anyone!) who are also rooting for the President's failure, offered mainly because Ms. Coulter and Mr. Limbaugh are not acknowledged as Republican Party leaders, their roles seeming to be defined as spokespersons, somehow representing that much alluded to 'base of the Republican Party', whomever they may be.

I'll have to get back to you on someone with qualities comparable to those you've mentioned.

Pythiian1

at 11:17 on March 8th, 2009

A voice of reason has emerged ... maybe?

Thanks, Zeet, for this piece as it complements your other piece on fascism.

zeet

at 11:19 on March 8th, 2009

You are welcome Pythiian1 - thank you for your comment and recommendation!

Roy C

at 11:19 on March 8th, 2009

Gingrich is right. You don't need to hope that the policies fail. If you disagree, you state that you believe that the policies will fail. You don't have to be like the democrats who openly hoped that the war in Iraq would fail.

Roy C

at 11:43 on March 8th, 2009

Gingrich's position is that Obama's policies have already been tried by Bush and failed .

"It has been fascinating to watch as conservatives at the Conservative Political Action Conference have run from, if not openly exhibited disdain for, the legacy of George W. Bush.

But during his speech on Friday, former House Speaker Newt Gingrich took the concept a step further, actually castigating Barack Obama as an extension of Bush policies in the worst possible ways.

There is "a Bush-Obama continuity in economic policy, which is frankly a disaster for this country and cannot work," said Gingrich, to an adulatory crowd.

Earlier he said that the county had just been forced to swallow a "Bush-Obama big spending program that was bi-partisan in its nature." Last year, he went on "the Bush -Obama plan had a stimulus package which failed, they came back with a housing package, which failed. They then had a 700 billion Wall Street plan which failed."

In that vein, Obama's Treasury Secretary, Timothy Geithner, "was part of the Bush group."

"We had big spending under Bush and now we have big spending under Obama," he concluded. "And so now we have two failures."

The idea that the GOP is sour on Bush is nothing new. And, as mentioned above, it has been an open component of the CPAC conference. But the idea that one of the conservative movement's most prominent members would badger the current White House occupant by comparing him to a two-term Republican president, says wonders about just how angered and disillusioned the conservative crowd is with the current state of governance"