Newt Gingrich spoke with reporters after his Wednesday talk, and here are some tidbits that I couldn’t fit into my piece this morning.
ON FRED THOMPSON:
Gingrich said Thomspon’s entry into the race would not affect his
decision to run. “He’s very talented, a good friend…and I
think he’d add to the race.”
ON THE EARLY ELECTION COVERAGE:
“Most Americans have good enough sense that in March a year before
the campaign, they don’t pay any attention. So it’s very hard to
communicate to normal, healthy, rational people in March of 2007
about an office you take in 2009. They just have better things to
do with their lives than to be absorbed in this stuff.”
ON WAITING UNTIL SEPT. 30 TO DECIDE WHETHER TO RUN:
“Barack Obama rose in three weeks, right? Howard Dean collapsed in
three weeks. That teaches me the cycles in America are three weeks.
So there’s plenty of time to come to that decision. Either somebody
will have sealed it off, in which case it’s moot, or, the game will
have started.”
ON PAKISTAN:
“I think we have to have a permanent planning process that worries
about Pakistan. If Musharraf were to be replaced by a radical, you
would have an extraordinarily dangerous situation that day. And my
hope is that we have contingency planning that recognizes how
dangerous that can be.”
ADVERTISEMENT
SPONSORED LINKS
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?