It is rare for any Republican to find time and positive coverage in this space.
However, in the last week, Newt Gingrich has taken two positions with which we concur.
First, he lectured the Boston gathering of the Republican Party that they had to become a party with a proposal and a solution for the nation's ills, not merely a voice of "No" against anything and everything President Obama proposes, and even has succeeded in passing in the Congress, like Obamacare.
Today, it is Gingrich, the former Speaker of the House of Representatives, during the Clinton presidency, who is warning against a military strike in Syria. Everyone knows that the follow-out from a bombing campaign of Syria's air force, and possibly her stash of chemical weapons by the U.S. and allies is completely unpredictable and most likely could and would make the situation worse.
This is the same man who, as a candidate for the White House in 2012, financed by a casino owner-operated, who gave voice to the "right" in his attempt to woo the fragmented party to his views.
It is the same man who compromised with Clinton in the 1990's to make government work, to balance the budget, to change the system of welfare from a hand-out to a hand-up, and who now serves as a "goad" to his myopic, insular and narcissistic colleagues in the Republican party.
Is anyone listening?
Is Gingrich the Obama of the Syrian invasion, urging the nation to resist military action?
While the Pentagon is "ready" in Secretary of Defence Chuck Hagel's word, and the Secretary of State condemns the use of chemical weapons in the strongest possible way, and the mountain of public opinion seems to favour a "firm" response, to quote the word used in news coverage of the president's conversation with Canadian Prime Minister Harper yesterday, and Senator McCain is and has been urging military action against the Assad regime for months, it is Gingrich, the lone voice of restraint in a world confounded by the Syrian complexities, embedded in the Arab uprisings, dictatorships' coups and the "crap-shoot" into which the Middle East has turned.
Is anyone listening? Or has Gingrich lost his public credibility, given his many outrageous positions during the last presidential campaign?
By Newt Gingrich, CNN website, August 28, 2013
CNN) -- News that the United States is considering a military strike on Syria in response to the Bashar al-Assad regime's suspected use of chemical weapons suggests we could soon see an American bombing campaign on the war-torn country.
The atrocities that took place in Syria recently, such as those that have been taking place there for almost two years, are deplorable and inhuman.
Before bombing Syria over the regime's latest crimes, however, we should stand back and ask, "And then what?"
A brief bombing campaign in Syria might make the United States and its allies feel like they are doing something, but it will prove nothing.
We have already abstained from getting involved in the civil war for two years and have chosen not to respond to evidence (albeit less clear) of another chemical attack this year.