Since Newt Gingrich has become a serious contender for the presidency, lots of pundits have been sharing their opinions on the man...and his past. Most who have followed him closely for years have chosen not to be all that flattering. Peggy Noonan has been writing about him lately with both admiration and dread, as have George Will and several others.
My own opinion thus far is that I'm glad Newt is in the race, especially the debates, because he takes the discussion to a higher level. The personal baggage does not bother me, as Newt has undertaken the same religious path I took into the Catholic faith, and at the same time, entering the Church at Easter Vigil of '09. I am convinced of his sincerity and his love for the Eucharist. I share that.
The other baggage, being the career successes and failures, are fair game and should be vetted. Peggy Noonan feels we know too much about Newt to comfortably elect him. While I'm on the fence on electing Newt, I also share some of her concerns. I'm including the first three paragraphs of Peggy Noonan's latest column, and just to let you readers know, I agree with her only up to the middle of the last big paragraph near the very end (not included below) where she simply loses me. It sounds more like a description of Al Gore Jr. than Newt. Check it out.
The first potential president about whom there is too much information.The Wall Street Journal: December 10, 2011
I had a friend once who amused herself thinking up bumper stickers for states. The one she made up for California was brilliant. “California: It’s All True.” It is so vast and sprawling a place, so rich and various, that whatever you’ve heard about its wildness, weirdness and wonders, it’s true.
That’s the problem with Newt Gingrich: It’s all true. It’s part of the reason so many of those who know him are anxious about the thought of his becoming president. It’s also why people are looking at him, thinking about him, considering him as president.
Read the rest HERE.Ethically dubious? True. Intelligent and accomplished? True. Has he known breathtaking success and contributed to real reforms in government? Yes. Presided over disasters? Absolutely. Can he lead? Yes. Is he erratic and unreliable as a leader? Yes. Egomaniacal? True. Original and focused, harebrained and impulsive—all true.