A Democratic Gingrich?
Today, Terry Neal of the Washington Post, had a column that asked “Do Democrats Need Their Own Gingrich?”
Here’s a bit of the column:
Suddenly, Democrats are optimistic about their political future. But should they be? Back in 1994, when the Republicans took over Congress, not every Republican agreed with every piece of the revolutionary agenda laid out by Rep. Newt Gingrich (R-Ga.). The party was riven then with ideological divides just as it is now. But the GOP was able to unite for the sake of political victory around a handful of leaders with a clear, concise vision for the future.
With the midterms a little more than a year away, the questions for Democrats are many. The most pressing question facing Democrats -- and the most tortured internal policy debate -- will be how to deal with Iraq, as well as the broader issue of defense, terrorism and foreign policy.
Yet, is there enough common ground within the party to establish a common, concise vision on Iraq, national security and other issues? Does the party need its version of Gingrich?
Some congressional Democrats are hoping to bolster the party's national security credentials. Last month, Rep. Steny Hoyer (D-Md.), the House minority whip, brought together a group of senior House Democrats to unveil a document entitled " Ensuring America's Strength and Security: A Democratic National Security Strategy for the 21st Century ."
(Source: Washington Post, Oct. 12, 2005)
I wouldn’t say that the Dems need a fat white southerner with a penchant of younger woman...wait, that sounds an awful lot like Bill Clinton. Maybe they do need their own Gingrich after all.