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 ...
Well, well....how can the GOP-Establishment attack him on this now?
If they didn't like Dems making a video of Ryan throwing grandma over the cliff along with her wheelchair, will they continue to throw Newt Gingrich under the bus in light of the truth?
We shall see if that talker of talk radio finds this revelation note worthy.... IIRC it was the mouth himself that claimed that Newt bashed Ryan way back when.
It would be correct, honest and a very telling thing to do, wouldn’t it?
>> [And now, here’s the rest of the story]
Paul Harvey. The good ol’ days.
It’s time for Mr Tharp to invest in a working space bar.
Mr. Tharp is very good at spacing — it was my bad.
Did you read the entire (perfectly spaced) column at the source?
This is an excellent article. It should be bookmarked and used against the Santorumbots who still squeal over Newt’s alleged political betrayals.
You’re right.
I just bookmarked it.
We’re all Paul Harveys now as we fight MSM headlines and soundbites!
Ijust saved it myself!
Someone on another thread has said that the GOP has set up a deal between Romney and Santorum to work together.
Can Sarah Palin get ’er done? Pros disagree
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-gop/2848107/posts
Begins at #6.
If true, it really stinks.
Interesting.
Also hints of Romney and Paul.
LOL. So true.
Now let’s see what gives all over talk radio on Monday. By then, this should be common knowledge and no excuse for not owning up to jumping to false conclusions. Ir’s about honor now.
My apologies. I am sick and grumpy today.
I understand.
I am WIDE awake this morning thanks to your threads. I am furious over that prospect. I had to update my tagline.
i watched that interview - and i wondered how some coulda thunk gingrich was criticizing ryan’s plan.
musta been gingrich haters trying to tear him down in hopes of bringing up their own favorite.
idiots
I heard Gingrich praise the Ryan plan. I saw him do it. Then the whole "right-wing social engineering" thing came up, and I've been wondering where that sound bite came from and why use it when Gingrich had openly praised the plan?
Who got this started?
Santorum will dump his delegates on Romney. Nothing in his background suggests he would do anything different.
You think Romney and the GOP-e don't know about his percentages?
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.
I don’t know. “Right wing social engineering” doesn’t sound like a compliment.
On the other hand, actually reading the article and engaging your cognitive faculties can often prevent thoughtless and misleading comments...
While I'm among the first to admit I wish we had different candidates to choose from, I am more convinced than ever before that Newt Gingrich should be POTUS.
Are we smart enough to recognize that fact in time to save ourselves, or do we commit political, then national suicide instead?
It's up to Newt to find a way to show the country what we need to see to make the right call. It's all on the line this election.
Campaign Advice to Newt: Don't just talk about the Reagan example, live it! Whatever comes at you, laugh it off and don't make it all about you, we don't care about you, make your campaign about US!
The GOP-e will NEVER admit this. Great article...needs to go viral.
Thank you for a great article and also the link for the Romney/Paul article.
About the Romney/Santorum deal, we will have to dig to find this information for awhile. For strategic reasons, the PA GOP insiders this came from say it’s not going public yet. Guess you could say they are playing this deal close to their..er..Vest.
Yep, and with pompous ridicule too.
Rush led the charge and made it acceptable to attack Newt's bonifides. Seems Rush has a dislike for Gingrich.
Rush and Newt aren’t altogether at odds.
Rush has played golf with both Newt and Callista.
Rush had dinners with Newt and Marianne (wife #2).
He thought Newt a hero when he did those special orders on the House floor backing Reagan.
My guess...just a guess...Rush will always hold somewhat of a grude against Newt for saying the era of Reagan is over.
It doesn’t really matter to Rush what Newt meant by that...Rush was furious that the words were uttered and that by a Reagan guy, Newt Gingrich.
Michael Reagan is campaigning for Newt, but Rush is either not for Newt or stealthily for Santorum.
So Reagan’s own son is more understanding of it than Rush...
Rush literally savaged both Newt and Rick Perry for criticizing Romney at Bain Capital. Totally went bananas over their “attack on Captitalism”.
Ridiculous.
Absolutely, it took a long time for conservatives to realize they were being screwed by the GOP-E. Coulter and Drudge were shilling for Romney back in 2008, and all of the elite got together to try and destroy Gingrich early on with the first opening they could find. That out-of-context sound bite taken from the NBC interview was their attempt to cut him off at the knees right out of the gate. Gingrich is a massive threat to the establishment and they have been out to get him from day one. Absolutely none of the attacks on him starting with the Ryan plan ring true. It’s all spin, hype, lies, half-truths, etc. Newt is the only guy who has the will and the ability to turn this country again and send power back from the government to the people.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/01/magazine/newt-gingrich-glory-days.html?pagewanted=all
...just about everyone had written him off as irrelevant by Labor Day. Gingrich sounds rueful when he thinks back to the pounding he took during his first week as a candidate, when he got into trouble with conservatives for criticizing the entitlement-reform plan offered by his friend Paul Ryan. “It was the excuse to go after me,” he told me. “So everybody said, ‘Oh, good, he’s bleeding, let’s see if we can’t kill him.’ And that’s what was the real revelation to me, is that people I really thought were personal friends all cheerfully engaged in the lynching. And a lot of them of course now have a vested interest in my not winning, because of how silly they’ll all look.”
http://www.newt.org/answers#Ryan
Paul Ryan (and the House GOP’s) Medicare Plan
Like Ryan and the House GOP, Newt supports a premium support model for Medicare. However, he wants seniors to have the choice to opt into the new system or to stay in traditional Medicare.
Newt agrees wholeheartedly with Rep. Ryan that we must give our seniors more choices than the current one-size-fits-all Medicare model. Both concur that creating the opportunity for seniors to buy private insurance is the key to both improving care and lowering costs.
The one key difference is that under Newt’s plan, as outlined in his 21st Century Contract with America, seniors will also have the choice to stay in the current Medicare system or choose a private insurance plan with support from the government to pay the premiums. The other difference is that Newt believes that seniors should have this option starting next year, not in ten years.
Q: So why did Newt use the term “right wing social engineering” on Meet the Press when discussing these proposed changes to Medicare?
Gingrich is opposed to any political party imposing dramatic change against the consent of the governed. Afterwards, Newt quickly admitted that his choice of words was too extreme, and he apologized to Congressman Ryan shortly thereafter.
In response to the host’s hypothetical question of whether Republicans should change Medicare even if there is public opposition, Gingrich’s response was no you should not. One of Newt’s basic governing philosophies is that government should offer a better alternative to existing entitlement programs that seniors can freely choose. Gingrich is opposed to any political party imposing dramatic change against the consent of the governed. Afterwards, Newt quickly admitted that his choice of words was too extreme, and he apologized to Congressman Ryan shortly thereafter. Newt regards Paul Ryan as one of the biggest innovators in Washington, D.C. and he deeply admires the seriousness and boldness of his historic Path to Prosperity budget.
And with that understood, how will Obama treat Newt’s position say, versus Mitt’s “severe conservatism” that “doesn’t care about the poor” but if needed he’ll “repair the safety net?”
Mitt will be roasted on a spit.
Here’s the transcript of the interview...
MR. GREGORY: What about entitlements? The Medicare trust fund, in stories that have come out over the weekend, is now going to be depleted by 2024 , five years earlier than predicted. Do you think that Republicans ought to buck the public opposition and really move forward to completely change Medicare , turn it into a voucher program where you give seniors...
REP. GINGRICH: Right.
MR. GREGORY: ...some premium support and — so that they can go out and buy private insurance ?
REP. GINGRICH: I don’t think right-wing social engineering is any more desirable than left- wing social engineering . I don’t think imposing radical change from the right or the left is a very good way for a free society to operate. I think we need a national conversation to get to a better Medicare system with more choices for seniors. But there are specific things you can do . At the Center for Health Transformation , which I helped found, we published a book called “ Stop Paying the Crooks .” We thought that was a clear enough, simple enough idea, even for Washington . We — between Medicare and Medicaid , we pay between $70 billion and $120 billion a year to crooks. And IBM has agreed to help solve it, American Express has agreed to help solve it, Visa ‘s agreed to help solve it. You can’t get anybody in this town to look at it. That’s, that’s almost $1 trillion over a decade. So there are things you can do to improve Medicare .
MR. GREGORY: But not what Paul Ryan is suggesting, which is completely changing Medicare .
REP. GINGRICH: I, I think that, I think, I think that that is too big a jump. I think what you want to have is a system where people voluntarily migrate to better outcomes, better solutions, better options, not one where you suddenly impose upon the — I don’t want to — I’m against Obamacare , which is imposing radical change , and I would be against a conservative imposing radical change .
mark for reading
It is more than obvious he has the PROUD GOP establishment 'hate' for Newt. The 'wealthier' Rush has gotten the further to the left he keeps moving. No conservative worth their salt would ever use the phrase 'playing the devil's advocate'. Anyway Rush has already made his intentions known, if his bottom line gets messed with he will move elsewhere. Rush loves to point to the character of the founding fathers and what they were willing to sacrifice to form this nation.... yet Rush has never been willing to walk in Newt's shoes... Rush has more in common with the rich 1% Romney/Santorum types anyway.
It doesn’t really matter to Rush what Newt meant by that...Rush was furious that the words were uttered and that by a Reagan guy, Newt Gingrich.
He didn't say those exact words at all. And the context and meaning of the words isn't even CLOSE to what people spinning it to bash Newt want to make you believe. Below is the interview where that came from. Newt was simply talking about looking for new issues for a new Contract with America-style platform, because obviously the issues of Reagan's campaigns like the Soviet Union, Iran hostages, Equal Rights Amendment, etc. did not exist anymore. And Newt referred to G.W. Bush's presidency as well, but oddly enough the people spreading this quote never tell you that.
The standard pattern when you look into these smears against Newt is that you find a long interview where Newt talks on and on about conservative issues and principles in an extremely articulate manner, then says one line which sounds totally innocuous as you're reading the interview, but which is then quoted or misquoted and taken out-of-context to make it sound like it means something that it didn't originally mean at all. Conservatives should be absolutely livid and incensed about the way Newt's opponents continuously try to mislead them away from someone who is one of the staunchest conservatives we'll ever be able to find.
http://abcnews.go.com/ThisWeek/story?id=4128020&page=1#.Tw3KmoEeW9x
TRANSCRIPT Newt Gingrich Talks with George
January 13, 2008
Look, I think there are dramatic changes we need in this country.
We produced a platform of the American people at American Solutions. And it’s at the back of our book “Real Change.” It’s also at Americansolutions.com. Every single item on the list has a majority of Democrats, majority of Republicans, majority of independents favoring.
The easiest one is making English the official language of government.
Look, I think the first two things the president and the Congress can do on the economy is cut spending. If you’ll notice, you have a primary in Michigan, a state which artificially had a recession, because its government is so bad, its taxes are so high, its unionized work rules are so destructive, that Michigan was in a recession when the rest of the country was growing.
Part of — real change focuses — a long section on Detroit.
The truth is, large bureaucracies are destructive. High taxes are destructive. The system we’ve built discourages any business from opening up in Detroit. The schools don’t deliver. They do deliver paychecks. They do take care of the union. But they don’t deliver for the kids. And this is at a time when if you’re an African- American male and you drop out of high school, you have a 73 percent chance of being unemployed and a 60 percent chance of going to jail.
So I think we need dramatically deeper and more fundamental change.
So — but let’s take things the American people agree on. The American people agree you ought to make it easier to build oil refineries in the United States if you want to bring down the price of oil.
The American people agree that you ought to set up prizes for major breakthroughs. And that would be very different than the system we’ve used since World War II.
The American people, in fact, agree that we ought to have tax credits for people who are willing to go to greater conservation for their homes. I mean, far beyond just how do I subsidize your heating oil, how do I make it unnecessary for you to buy as much heating oil?
The Congress and the president do have an opportunity to listen to the American people, who are saying that real change does matter, and the real change is what they want.
The way the McCain/Feingold law currently discriminates against the middle class, is it sets up a system by which, you know, if you’re the mayor of New York and you’re Bloomberg and you’re worth $11 billion, you can contemplate buying the presidency and get away with it. If you are a self-, you know, a multi-millionaire governor and you want to, you can buy a nomination.
And so, I just think there’s nothing unhealthy about the Republican Party having a serious discussion. We are at the end of the George W. Bush era. We are at the end of the Reagan era.
We’re at a point in time where we’re about to start redefining — as a number of people have started talking about, we’re starting to redefine the nature of the Republican Party in response to what the country needs.
...vest”...that was cute!
thanx for the giggle; having a tuff time getting past the whole vest-look myself-maybe it’s just me, but what kind of image is he trying to project with the vest?
Am I missing something? I’m not feeling it whatever it is...
Mrs CT Hillbilly
Thank you for the link!
BUT....
I hope the readers read the thread article LINKED in the “source” above, as it explains WHAT led up to that part of their exchange and that is IMPORTANT to read.
http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/02/does_ryan_now_agree_with_gingrich.html
Rush has all the access in the world to the same context you posted, in regard to Newt’s statement.
I’m saying just that the words were uttered, and were “out there” for use in soundbites to put down Reagan, rather than to continue lifting him up, by taking them out of whatever context they were in, apparently raised Rush’s hackles forevermore.
At the time it happened, Rush went apoplectic, and does so any time it’s brought up again.
I think he nurses that grudge.
He hasn’t cut Newt off, just still nurses the grudge, imo.
Has interviewed him, and even revealed he had been on Golf outings with Newt and Callista.
Now Rush will say he hasn’t, and won’t, endorse anyone.
True, he hasn’t said he endorses, and he won’t.
But his wild attack on Newt for the Romney and Bain Capital thing was imo another glimpse into the soul of someone who holds a grudge.
Contrast Michael Reagan, the Gipper’s own son, wholeheartedly supporting Newt.
And I believe...unlike those who think Rush is for Romney...if he is stealthily for anyone it is Santorum.
We also know his brother David is openly and officially for Santorum.
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...
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.