The Real State of the Union by Newt Gingrich

The Real State of the Union

Newt Gingrich
January 25, 2012

As a member of Congress I sat through 20 State of the Union addresses. I listened to Presidents Carter, Reagan, Bush and Clinton. Four of those I spent sitting behind the president as Speaker of the House.

During each of the four years I was speaker, it was President Clinton who delivered the State of the Union address.

I can tell you firsthand that it is very challenging to be the Republican Speaker of the House sitting directly behind a Democratic president as he delivers his biggest speech of the year. There are more pitfalls than you might imagine.

On the one hand, the speaker sitting behind the president has to be positive and polite because he (or she) is technically the host and represents the entire House. That is a nonpartisan responsibility.

On the other hand, I was, like Speaker Boehner last night, a Republican and a conservative who found a lot of what a liberal president said the opposite of what I believed. I couldn't be seen applauding or smiling while the president said things I opposed.

All this is made more complicated by two facts about State of the Union addresses.

First, presidents try to find popular unifying statements which will bring the entire Congress to its feet on both sides of the aisle, and the speakers behind the president often find themselves standing and applauding him on national television simply because it wouldn't make sense to ignore these statements.

Yet second, the liberal president will almost certainly attack the Republican speaker's party, and will do so to the great excitement and enthusiasm of his fellow Democrats. If your face suggests that you're bothered by the president's attacks on your party, everyone will see your reaction on television. Few other people in the chamber have to think so much about what their faces are doing.

I know the State of the Union was always one of the hardest things I did. I suspect President Obama's ideological extremism makes it even harder for Speaker Boehner.

President Obama's class warfare, his commitment to raising taxes, increasing regulation and his failed ideology make his vision for America one of the most radical in our history. The vision he describes is for fundamentally changing our country.

I sure wouldn't want to sit behind him as he described that.

Bet it was so much easier to sit behind Clinton than to sit and listen to this guy.

Mark85la wrote:Bet it was so much easier to sit behind Clinton than to sit and listen to this guy.

I'm sure it was. But to be fair, I bet it pained Pelosi to sit behind Bush.

TexasBlue wrote:

Mark85la wrote:Bet it was so much easier to sit behind Clinton than to sit and listen to this guy.

I'm sure it was. But to be fair, I bet it pained Pelosi to sit behind Bush.

As I recall it, she looked pained.

If you had asked me even just a month ago if I could support the Newt, I would have had to laugh a little. I remember this guy as being both arrogant and a liar... who was eventually busted on both accounts.

But... nobody is perfect and time does tend to change people.

So far, I like some of what he has said... I like that he is rolling up the ragged tent and sounding like he's planning to build a house. I'm tired of the US being the global whipping boy and pretending that we're all bowing down to beg forgiveness for being a great nation.

Also, as a big fan of manned space exploration and the science of the same, I like his comment of building a 51st state out of a colony on the moon.
LINK: http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/The-Vote/2012/0126/Is-moon-base-really-the-weirdest-Newt-Gingrich-idea-Maybe-not

I like that a lot... because it takes guts and gumption and more than a few stones!

So, for now, I am in Newt's cheering section. I have a good seat and a cold beer to watch the rest of the show. I hope it will be worth the price of admission

Newt and Mitt. Two big guns. One is a northeastern big shot, the other is not. One knows (literally) how congress functions and the other does not. One is a northeastern liberal Repub and the other is not.

Hmmm.

I don't know if he can survive the primary process unfortunately.

Quite apart from the disparity in available funds between Newt and Romney, and the mountain of ads Romney's PAC's are running against him, now many of the conservative magazines are gunning for him.

We'll see... like Mike, there are some things I like about Newt - and Romney just leaves me wanting.

Knock on wood...

dblboggie wrote:I don't know if he can survive the primary process unfortunately.

Quite apart from the disparity in available funds between Newt and Romney, and the mountain of ads Romney's PAC's are running against him, now many of the conservative magazines are gunning for him.

We'll see... like Mike, there are some things I like about Newt - and Romney just leaves me wanting.

Knock on wood...

Yeah, but conservatives aren't buying into what you just pointed out. Even Ann Coulter is shilling for Romney. I have read her last 4 columns and all of them are shills. The best part is reading comments by readers. It's almost unanimous that everyone want Ann to take a hike for being a Romney shill.

I lost my respect for Ann as of late, she doesn't make sense anymore. Lots of the people at FNC seem to be for Mitt too I've noticed.

TexasBlue wrote:

dblboggie wrote:I don't know if he can survive the primary process unfortunately.

Quite apart from the disparity in available funds between Newt and Romney, and the mountain of ads Romney's PAC's are running against him, now many of the conservative magazines are gunning for him.

We'll see... like Mike, there are some things I like about Newt - and Romney just leaves me wanting.

Knock on wood...

Yeah, but conservatives aren't buying into what you just pointed out. Even Ann Coulter is shilling for Romney. I have read her last 4 columns and all of them are shills. The best part is reading comments by readers. It's almost unanimous that everyone want Ann to take a hike for being a Romney shill.

Yeah, I saw the columns and I must confess that I am perplexed at her favoring Romney.

I know she does excellent research, and she did dig up some information on Gingrich that was somewhat disconcerting - but to favor Romney who is such a screaming moderate... I don't know what to make of it, unless she really believes that he is hiding his true conservative views.

Normally Ann is right on the money with her analysis of the political scene... this one is a real headscratcher.

Okay guys, let me add this; Newt, Mitt, Ron, Rick... mix and match, take your pick. In the end, we will be voting for the GOP candidate, voting for Obama, voting Libertarian, voting (write-in) for M. Mouse or... not voting at all.

If we want to kick the incumbent out on his keester, we need to concentrate as a force on this issue by way of the political crapshoot; voting for the person most likely to succeed in this task.

Personally, I am only a single issue away from committing Libertarian. But since that single issue isn't likely to change in their platform, I feel I need to stay flexible.

Man, we gotta get this guy out of the Whitehouse or we ain't gonna have a country to stick a president in much longer.

Well I could not agree with that sentiment more!

Personally, no matter who the Republican nominee turns out to be he will certainly be getting my vote.

And perhaps this is the logic driving Ann's selection of Romney - electibilty.