Posted on 02/18/2012 1:10:22 AM PST by Cincinatus' Wife
There is a perception lingering about NewtGingrich that he was a critic of PaulRyan's budget plan and therefore a critic of conservative fiscal policy in the House of Representatives. Is that conclusion true? Or is it an oversimplification? Like many misconceptions floating around during a heated political season, it is not true. Let's examine the facts.
On April 5, 2011, Representative PaulRyan, the HouseBudgetCommittee chairman, introduced the Republican budget for 2012. Included in that budget was a premium support model for Medicare. This budget was based on a similar plan previously laid out by Ryan called TheRoadmapforAmerica'sFuture. That document had been a RepublicanParty policy call to change the budget and put it on sound fiscal grounds compared to the Democrats' unwillingness to budget at all and tax and spend into infinity. The Harry Reid-run Senate has not passed a budget for over three years, even though they are required to by law.
Gingrich praised the Ryan plan in an article in Human Events on April 13. He called it the most serious attempt by an elected official to rethink our public finances and the modern welfare state in a generation. That is quite a compliment from a former speaker of the House to a current committee chairman. Using a golfing metaphor, Gingrich celebrated the plan, calling it a Ryan "eagle." Is that comparison a negative critique, or is it commendation? One week later, on April 20, Gingrich in the same space heaped more praise on the plan. He compared PaulRyan to PaulRevere, one of our nation's great heroes, and compared the Ryan Medicare plan with his own previous welfare reform. Why would he disparage something he would compare to one of his greatest achievements? Gingrich later said he would have voted for the plan if he had had the opportunity......
(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...
The little known fact is that when Newt called Paul Ryan’s plan “social engineering,” Newt realized he used a term that was not fair to Ryan’s good plan. Since Newt valued Ryan’s friendship, he called him and apologized. Ryan accepted Newt’s apology.
In an interview with Rush Limbaugh, Gingrich explains that "It was not a reference to Paul Ryan. There was no reference to Paul Ryan in that answer." Limbaugh asked Newt, why did he call Ryan to apologize? "It was interpreted in a way which was causing trouble which he doesn't need or deserve,” answered Newt.
Gingrich has always supported the Ryan's budget plan (parts of which he helped create) but separated it from the Ryan's timing and "solution" for Medicare reform, which Ryan lumped together in the budget process (right after the election campaign which GOP won, in part, by beating up on ObamaCare as destroying Medicare and vowing to "protect Medicare for the seniors") and the GOP paid a heavy price in that budget battle, not only discarding Ryan's Medicare reform (which was a feeble, not very robust or cost-saving attempt at reform, to begin with) but also having to retreat on some of the budget issues. It's been downhill for Republican Congress ever since... And people were accusing Gingrich on "caving" to Clinton, while Bob Dole routinely sabotaged Newt to be "electable" for 1996 presidential run.
Many good points about that (and Santorum's "knee-jerk conservative" reaction to Newt's reasoning) on this thread :
Gingrich knocked by right on healthcare - FR, posts #1, #2, #25, #27 / The Hill, by Michael O'Brien, 2011 May 16
Newt was savaged then, on talk radio and by his campaign rivals, because it became an unthinking "established dogma" that any plan coming out of new Republican Congress was the "only good solution" and not to be criticized. They neither would give him time to explain, nor understand what he was trying to warn GOP about. The results of GOP House pushing the "Paul Ryan plan" were a predictable budget disaster.
Newt, probably better than most, understands the plight of Cassandra. But that's what always made him a leader, as opposed to a a talk show host, whose job may depend on "not understanding" certain things that go against the everyday mantra.
The Rush Limbaugh LIVE Radio Show Thread - Wednesday, May 18, 2011 - FR, posts #57, #82, #144, #38, 2011 May 18
Despite the "diversity" of their different groups, most Democrats are united in one goal: "Power is the Money and Money is the Power - the "diversity" of the groups is just the means to an end. That's what Alinsky methods are all about. Gingrich understood this long time ago and was concentrating on fighting to discredit and defund the liberal leftists' means of funding their faux "goals" through government trough - instead of futile attempts that have been made for decades by the "conservative media leaders" to discredit the well-sounding liberal "goals" (education, environment / climate change, medical help, "universal" insurance for everything, poverty relief, advancement of science, etc. etc.)
Co-opting the true (not rhetorical) goals and showing the lemmings the real solutions of how to achieve them cheaper, without required financial "sacrifices" and pain, more equitable and more beneficial, for more people and for the "system" itself, is much more efficient and effective strategy than trying to dissuade them that the "goals" are phony.
This approach spells the doom of the huge income stream for the people in the government and NGOs "industries" that spout the dangers of "doing nothing" and benefits of [broader] government involvement, whether through government spending or laws, rules, regulations, mandates and taxes. But that requires a leader, not just a talk show host, whose job it is just preaching the same ol' slogans as "solutions" to the same ol' choir, even as the same ol' methods keep resulting in the battles (and the war) getting lost.
Unfortunately, Small Government doesn't have big constituency, even in many supposedly "conservative" circles. It doesn't help that many of the fractions of so-called Republican or "conservative" coalition are only too happy with big government, as long as they can use the government to do their bidding, "moral" or financial. That's what Newt called about presiding over or "managing the decay".
Two GOP candidates, both with MBA and law degrees (Romney's double major from Harvard, Santorum's from Penn State) are not planning to make government smaller, they'll just reshuffle the margins to their own liking, just ready enough for the next big step up in size and scope of government authority and spending when they transfer it to the next Harvard/Yale/Princeton Democrat.
The establishment (GOP-E) always expected to "balance" the ticket of Romney with some social conservative (even Santorum if he can make a good showing, though they'd really prefer someone more serious and less "controversial" like Bob McDonald of VA) but they would even accept Romney as VP if Santorum somehow racks serious delegate count at the expense of Newt and it's the only way they can quickly regain "unity" and calm at the convention. Their real common enemy is Newt Gingrich, which is why you don't see a coordinated media onslaught (NRO, AmSpec, Drudge, Coulter, "analysts" at FOX/FNC etc.) claiming, amazingly, that the candidate is/was always disliked by true Reaganites and was known dissing Reagan and his ideas, on anyone else but Newt...
You also don't hear any "rumors" from the "media" just before the primaries, that the candidate has lost or is about to lose "his" PAC funding from a wealthy benefactor, despite all evidence to the contrary... unless that candidate is Newt. Everyone else, who is not a small government / Reaganite conservative, and who is willing to toe the establishment line, is mildly or warmly acceptable to GOP-E. Newt was the only one at the CPAC talking about shaking up the establishment (and he didn't whine afterwards about an irrelevant Mitt-bought straw poll) - the establishment can't possibly be happy with that.
So, the Tea Party, having no leaders or central organization, and existing as only small loose local affiliates, has an inherent logistical difficulty to help those who truly represent their point of view of smaller government, and competing with those "conservatives" who want to use GOP for their piece of the "government pie" even when they are outnumbered by the "we just want the government to leave me alone" groups within the GOP. There may be strength in the overall numbers, but occasionally it has to be "organized" and properly and forcefully utilized, or else, without a champion to unite behind, the TP will be forever fractured, marginalized and co-opted time and again.
Wow, very good post. You’ve expressed all the thoughts and feelings I have in a rather eloquent, educated way. You’re absolutely right.
And more detail about this - and why Rush is wrong about it (but pride goeth before a fall and Rush is "over 99% right" so he has a lot of pride and it's not easy for him to concede something he angrily repeated many times) - here:
Reagan Had the Recipe for Success. Let's Follow It (Newt Gingrich in WSJ) - FR, posts # 17, #1 / WSJ, by Newt Gingrich, 2011 December 29
Thanks so much for sharing this. Specificity, Substance.
EXCELLENT!
I knew the Abrams ‘article’ was wrong as Rush was reading it, but the damage was done. I stay off the ‘rush’ threads as they are like ... well never mind.
Rush is no longer the voice of conservatism, and he has outsourced his research. As far as I am concerned he has been ‘bain’-washed, and worships at the feet of the capital-ISM’s golden bull. Yes, RUSH researchers, credibility is a sad thing to throw away.
Rush has occasionally been a disappointment during this primary.
He wasted 3 weeks doing almost nothing but defending Cain against what he thought were left wing media attacks.
He went ballistic against the Bain criticism for some strange reason. Maybe he thought it was similar to the left attacking capitalists.
But it will be interesting to see what he says Monday after Santorum has allowed himself to be suckered into making over the top statements about sex, procreation and birth control. What a fool to get into that !!!
I think it will basically make him unelectable.
I hope Newt can get his mojo back.
Sex for procreation.
That’s true, but not all there is to it.
And not a whole lot of Americans want or can afford 7 or 19 kids. The Santorums have the 7, and a big deal is made of a family of 19 kids who endorsed him.
To get bogged down in that when as Rush well knows, this nation will not survive another Obama 4 years of radical left dictatorship...
It pains me.
After what happened with his Cain obsession and his all out defensive mode for Cain, and given my suspicion that he stealthily supports Santorum, I am not optimistic that he will get back on the real Rush track.
Would like to be proven wrong...
What upsets me the most about this Santorum meltdown is that it is a huge weapon the left can use to paint Santorum as a right wing lunatic who wants to ban birth control and he’s doing nothing but make it worse.
I was (and am) prepared to vote for Santorum if he got the nomination but now I’m really scared that he is actually unelectable.
He does not handle questions about this well at all. He gets all tangled up in his arguments, saying more and more dumb things.
And they call Newt undisciplined.
I’m just sayin’...compared to WHOM...Santorum?
Good post.
Santorum doesn’t have the competence to facilitate the change that’s animating his campaign. He’s just an establishment bit player that’s too often in a state of disbelief.
You want our Country back, folks, vote Newt!!!
I liked Rick better when he didn't speak... much. But I am glad that he finally "speaks his mind" now, while there may still be time for people to wake up and take another look at who [he thinks] he is, before he did irreparable damage to conservative movement.
In less than two weeks after his win, Santorum is showing more people who he is, and what he would be like as a president, or what he would really like to be if "they/we" let him (a humorless, lacking in humility arrogant sourpuss, two-bit dictator). He was nicknamed "Rooster" in school, so it seems that it developed early.
""Nearly all men can stand adversity, but if you want to test a man's character, give him power" - Abraham Lincoln
Looks like being a Senator was already over the limit of his Peter Principle quota. But so was Biden's... and many other public servants.
Santorum was simply a beneficiary of Newt conserving his limited resources and not campaigning in states where "beauty contest" primaries don't allocate binding or any delegates (didn't even register for MO primaries because delegates are assigned later in MO caucuses) hoping for Santorum to stop Romney's Florida "momentum" and then lose delegates in some other states where he is also not likely to contend, which is exactly what happened.
Unfortunately, the possible side-effect of Santorum win, with the help of the willing media and other anti-Newt forces, is that his "momentum" may convince some conservatives to move sharply to Santorum ("to stop Mitt") in the states where Gingrich should naturally do well, and thus jeopardize a slew of delegates in the Super Tuesday and beyond, thus giving more delegates to SantoRomney/RomTorum ticket.
The Tea Parties in the important states and districts should be made aware of this and come out strongly for Newt, not be moved by polls and giving their vote to Romney/Santorum.
Newt was for Tea Party before Tea Party was cool, when it was just a concept. Tea Party people have no other champion in this race, they should understand that:
Gingrich's Secret Weapon: Newt Inc. - FR, post #21, by JediJones, 2012 February 02
Gingrich's ties to the tea party movement are deep and long-lasting. In March 2009, when tea parties were just beginning to be organized, the Georgian pledged to use his prodigious mailing list at American Solutions to publicize the inaugural Tax Day event. He posted a link on every website he owned, sent emails to everyone in his database and produced a video while publicly announcing his support of the tea party movement — long before radio talkers like Glenn Beck jumped on the bandwagon. http://www.sunshinestatenews.com/print/4463516
FReeper Mind-numbed Robot had a good take on this "phenomena" -
Reagan Had the Recipe for Success. Let's Follow It (Newt Gingrich in WSJ) - FR posts #27, #37, by Mind-numbed Robot, 2012 December 30
It is my opinion, after seeing/hearing several well known Republican Conservatives, that some are jealous of Newt's intelligence and are intent on proving he is not "the smartest person in the room." They say that is what he thinks of himself and they are determined to prove that they are the smartest, not Newt. Rush and Bill Bennett are two of those people. Each has a reputation of being smart and they don't want to share that with Newt.
It's interesting since Gingrich actually seems very humble, accepting the possibility of sometimes making mistakes and responsibility for them. He doesn't seem to succumb to "Not Invented Here" disease and is often giving credit to other people for ideas or accomplishments.
Of course, that's a mark of true leader ("It is amazing what you can accomplish if you do not care who gets the credit" - Ronald Reagan) - not necessarily of "movement" talk show hosts.
"Nearly all men can stand adversity, but if you want to test a man's character, give him power" - Abraham Lincoln
Rush crows about the state media using his program for their show prep, so he well knows the power of his words and he makes no bones about his influence on the debate.
It would seem we have 2 "roosters" (with reference to your mention of a Santorum H.S. nickname). But I'm not convinced that Rush isn't already backing Mitt and this is all just manipulation of conservatives.
As Rush continues to repeat, anyone of them would be better than Obama. That holds truth but that has also kept Romney on par with the conservative field (that has been cynically narrowed down to these last 4 "choices").
It would be interesting to look into a crystal ball and see what this primary would look like today w/o the influence of Rush and others (who plead complete fairness toward the field).
Your opponent will attempt (and hope to succeed) in taking your strength, and through manipulation and repetition, paint it as a negative so it becomes toxic and useless to you.
I seldom even get a chance to listen (and usually have less interest in hearing for 3 hours the "chewing and milking" of something that is less than I can usually find on FR, Drudge and my email in a few minutes) but whenever I did, it seems that he's been trying to keep his options open, while still trying to subtly play the kingmaker.
Also, many open primaries threw the monkey wrench into the race early, and Dems are openly using his ill-considered "Operation Chaos" against hapless Republicans (who allow it - something Tea Party could easily unite in stopping after the elections) so he doesn't want to go out on a limb with predictions and be shown wrong, especially since he can hide it behind the claim of "not interfering in primaries" - it's a win-win for him - much easier to just read and comment on the polls that he can pick and chose and interpret any way he sees fit.
I don't think he is too pleased, because he knows that he will have to "carry water" for Mitt if he becomes the nominee (which Rush said he will no longer do for GOP after McCain's campaign), but he seems to really favor Santorum, while sliding over and ignoring his big government, statist résumé.
He's been harshest on Newt, even before Paul Ryan's fiasco of sticking the massive, unvetted Medicare reform into otherwise decent, as first step, and winnable budget plan.
The few times he had Newt on his program, he kept cutting him off, and generally wasn't very interested in explanations as much as trying to show off himself and his own "brilliance" and importance / influence.
Many times when he spoke of Newt, it was only to bring up something that he couldn't bring himself to admit he was wrong; mostly phony issues, that he locked himself into to disagree with (harping on "Ryan plan" or replaying "Era of Reagan is over" etc.) but not giving Newt credit for the things or ideas he brought up.
People laughed at Reagan's "supply-side economics" (Bush called it "voodoo economics") the same way they are laughing at some of Gingrich's ideas, even those which seem tame by comparison. There is no question that Rush feels he would see his influence or position of conservative "thought leader" greatly diminished if Newt becomes President or even just a nominee.
"If you have no enemies, you are not important enough to have made any" - Alexandre Dumas
"Our worst enemies here are not the ignorant and simple... our worst enemies are the intelligent and corrupt" - Henry Graham Greene
If I need to be more clear, I was disussing with altura that RUSH shouldn’t get bogged down defending or even discussing Santorum’s musings that are not on the core of what Rush himself says we face as a nation if O is re-elected.
If Santorum chooses to say more things that aren’t on that core subject, that’s for the best. Best people know that now, not later. Because he has many statements going way back, for the Dems to chew up, and it would be a shame if he shut up and people didn’t research and didn’t know about them, and voted for him on that ignorance.
Altura and I were wishing and hoping that Rush doesn’t pull another all out defense of a candidate against the media, with Santorum, such as he did with Cain.
We want Rush to stay on, get back on, message.
Not that Santorum should be able to hide his true thoughts.
As Rush would say......"You may have inadvertently stumbled on the truth."
Though I would say that you've zeroed in on the truth.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.