Newt Gingerich

[CPL.Luke]

anybody catch his interview in this months discover magazine?

 

apparently he is considering running for president in 08 (only 846 days 8 hours 46 mins away) and seems to be the only poitician I know of who actually understands how science policy has to be done. Namesly he believes that science policy takes time to be successful, and that the budgets need to be set with an eye 5-10 years into the future. He also talked about how he believes that NASA has failed in its mission, primarily because of the bureacracy surrounding it, and that it should be heavily overhauled in order to better facilatate the burgeoning space industry in the United states.

 

I'm not sure what to mae of him though, I was to young to have eperienced his reign as speaker for the house (although I have heard his "infections" comment), and although it souds like he has just the right amount of conservative in him I really can't make a good call on it.

[ParanoiA]

I like Newt. He's quite a practical, logical thinker really. I think people dislike him for the same reason people dislike any conservative without actually listening to why he thinks what he thinks. He's been hard on the administration on several issues so I'm not sure how much the party will embrace him.

 

And he's not a people person. I like his almost geek like disposition to government and philosophy. But I've seen my pop culture driven countrymen dismiss great candidates for completely asinine, irrelevant trivia far too many times to believe he'd make it through the primaries.

[john5746]

He has vison and expresses it well. He proved himself a leader with the Republican congress, but he would keep the parties devided, IMO.

[RichF]

But I've seen my pop culture driven countrymen dismiss great candidates for completely asinine, irrelevant trivia far too many times to believe he'd make it through the primaries.

 

I'm not a huge fan of Newt but I respect his arguments. I agree with your statement on the sad progression of our culture whole heartedly. This country is unfortunately heading more and more towards becoming a entertainment culture. Critical thinking and logic are no longer important. Personally, I find it depressing that a large majority of the population is more interested in the thoughts of high school drop out rock stars and tv/movie stars.

 

makes me sad!

[ecoli]

@ cpl.luke - is there any policy of his that you particularly like?

[Pangloss]

Newt would be quite an interesting candidate to see in terms of Science Forums and Debate -- a far-right/religious-right candidate who supports science and technology. He has a strong "common sense" streak that I've always found to be very attractive in a politician, and he's also not afraid to speak his mind. He has also been a writer and historian, teaching at a fairly prestigious southern university. He presents quite a quandry for anyone who equates "far right" to "anti-science".

 

True story: I first met Newt Gingrich at a science fiction convention in 1984. No, really. He sat on a panel discussing NASA's mission and the future of the space program in general, with author Larry Niven and (if memory serves) a NASA scientist and someone else I can't remember (I want to say Owen Gingrich, who's a famous space observer and professor at Harvard, but maybe I'm just channeling that due to the similarities with Newt's last name). They talked about space stations and whatnot, and I remember being impressed with Newt's knowledge of the subject.

 

Since then I voted for Newt twice as my representative to the House of Representatives. That was all before he took a strong turn to the right, which was part of his campaign to become Speaker. Since then I didn't have any more opportunities to vote for or against him, though, having moved to a different locale.

 

Anyway, as I say he presents a quandry for those who advocate the notion that the religious right is anti-science. Many of them are, of course, but I don't think most people realize that MOST southerners are NOT anti-science. I think a lot of folks have this mental image of the South as a backwater, intellectually-challenged part of the Western world, and it's just not so. Southern voters may be willing to set aside intellectual honesty in favor of a candidate with the "proper moral values" (choke), but I'm not sure that's any different from the kind of idiocy voters undertake in democracies all over the world.

 

I don't really see Newt as a serious candidate, nor is he one I could vote for because of the way he courts the Dobson types. But it would be interesting.