RE:
He’s Back. I had an interesting surprise on Sunday. I got an email from a friend, Mary Keeser, informing me that my name was on the front page of the Wall Street Journal’s Saturday edition. I’ve hyperlinked the title of the article by June Kronholz
june.kronholz@wsj.com. but unless you subscribe you won’t see it online. The quote reads:
Halfway back in the line, Deborah Reppenhagen, a retired Defense Department controller, held four of Mr. Gingrich's books that she was determined to get signed, and explained her enthusiasm. "I want him to be my president," she said.
I believe I also said something to the effect that, of the declared candidates, I was most interested in Rudi Giulianni and most curious about Duncan Hunter. I remain very enthusiastic about Newt Gingrich. However, to be clear, my enthusiasm transcends the issue of Newt’s candidacy. I am enthusiastic about Newt’s ideas and initiatives for changing the nature of political discourse in this country. I am enthusiastic about solving real issues like transforming health and healthcare (without making them government programs). And, I am enthusiastic about enabling our country’s success in winning the future - in whatever small way I can help. If the vote were held today, I would choose Newt to be my president. But, the vote isn’t today; it’s many moons from now. So, for the meanwhile, my primary focus is on issues and options and solutions and I encourage others to keep an open mind and above all keep on thinking. It really is too soon to stop thinking and start stumping for any one candidate. No need to hurry up and wait
I must admit. I did not have my media messages ready the day I was interviewed. It was the last day of the
Conservative Political Action Committee (CPAC) and my thoughts were racing on many an issue. But that’s why I went to CPAC. I ‘m not a classic conservative. Nor am I a neocon, a theocon, a libertarian, or any of the many other hyphenated shades of the right known to me. But, I found this group less homogenous as the left would have you believe. And, it was what I was looking for. I am on my own exploratory journey and working to challenge my own old assumptions and positions on my key issues. Like most, I presume to know where I stand. But that’s not good enough. I want to be better prepared to discuss them - ever more concisely, coherently, credibly, and convincingly with confidence. I also hope to use what I learn to advocate for that which I belive in - and work to be part of solutions (letters, phone calls, engagement). It’s just not enough to define what I think “someone” else ought to do.
CPAC was my first immersion in organized politics of any party or persuasion. It was a worthwhile experience given my personal goals. Sure, I sat through some measure of rhetoric. But, in the main, I found it refreshing to listen to opinion and clear thinking instead of the intelligience insulting insinuendos, false moral equivalence, character attacks and propoganda for the brain dead that permeate the sound byte sonatas in our daily news. I don’t want just the sound bytes; my attention span is just too long for that.
