The New(t) Possibility

crossposted from race42008

It’s time for a little bedtime story…

The year was 1994. I was then a young man of 16; full of ambition and determination, and it was then that I first met him.

Well, it sort of went that way…

Actually, my first meeting with Newt Gingrich came when I was to have lunch with him during my two years in Georgia (the two years I spent out of the state of Tennessee). Young and ambitious? Hardly. I was a perennial screw up; drunk stoned, and dethroned- to quote the Jesus & Mary Chain. However, along with a few others, my achievements athletically led to my being selected for this rare opportunity to share lunch with the newly minted “2nd most powerful man in America.” I was completely blown away by the Speaker. To this day, he is one of the most articulate people I have ever met. I’ve met him a couple of more times and have only nice things to say about Gingrich as a person. I don’t judge his morality. I do think he has numerous issues that would be nails in his coffin, but I don’t hold his admitted affairs against him.

First of all, I don’t think he is running unless he really does raise 30 million dollars. Why? Well, first of all, it’s highly unlikely that anyone could raise 30 million dollars in one month in the current state of the GOP, and Gingrich is potentially an even tougher sell. The party is to fractured and divided, and Gingrich is not blameless in this task. In 1994, the Republicans had completely demolished any hope of a future for the democrat party. However, the 1994 election was in many ways similar to the 2006 mid-term elections and the return of the Democrat majority. Many prominent democrat officeholders were under investigation for corruption; Bill Clinton was then considered a sure one term president, and the Republicans promised America a fresh start under a banner brilliantly titled the “Contract With America.” The GOP, without the presidency and no former president still calling the shots, were led by the Contract architect, Congressman Newt Gingrich. The promise to the American people was to clean up the mess. Gingrich campaigned for GOP challengers to democratic held seats, and his gamble paid off. The Republican Party was swept into control and there was a sense of revolution in the air. These were not the same old pork barrel politicians. There were new prominent, fresh faces; “young and ambitious” new congressmen like Joe Scarborough, Steve Largent, Sam Brownback, Tom Coburn, Lindsay Graham, Mark Sanford, and J.C. Watts. The revolution didn’t stop in the House of Representatives, but spilled over into governors’ mansions and the Senate as well. We had new GOP governors like George Pataki of NY, Frank Keating of OK, Tom Ridge of PA, and most notably, George W. Bush of TX. In the Senate, the GOP now had fresh rising stars such as Bill Frist of TN, Jon Kyl of AZ, James Inhofe of OK, Rick Santorum of PA, and Fred Dalton Thompson of TN. These new lawmakers represented a bold change in Washington. It was the first time since 1918 that a party ran on a national platform and represented the ideals of smaller government and less federal spending. It specifically avoided social issues like abortion and school prayer, while focusing on smaller government, waste, and ultimately, reform. It was a brilliant strategy, and Clinton was surely the next target. However, things didn’t turn out they way 1994 predicted.

First, there was the resurgence of Bill Clinton’s popularity. Clinton handled a national tragedy (the Oklahoma bombing in 1995) with grace and his popularity began to recover. He relied greatly on his old advisor Dick Morris to rekindle his image and he succeeded. Morris, the apolitical, amoral strategist, advised Clinton to attack the republicans and Newt Gingrich on their cuts in areas like Medicare; an area Gingrich, who had come to believe that he was invincible, was trying to overhaul. It was a noble idea, but Gingrich was an idea man at heart, and Clinton ran circles around him repeatedly. Gingrich shut down the federal government after a stalemate over the Medicare budget. Clinton politically crippled Gingrich and Newt was forced to reopen the government, to the dismay of many of the class of 1994.

More and more of the original legislation of the contract was either compromised, abandoned, or defeated, like the term limits bill in 1994, which was to hold elected officials to term limits in the house and senate, authored by a freshman senator named Fred Thompson.

Clinton was back on his own turf, now free to work with the republicans. He won public victory after public victory, continuously handing Gingrich blow after blow. Gingrich said at the time, “I’m not a natural leader. I’m a natural intellectual gadfly.” By 1997, it was clear that many of the old guard who had remained in office were set in their ways, and there was little Gingrich could do about it. The class of 1994 ran as reformers, but they couldn’t fight the democrats and the holdovers of the GOP at the same time. By 1998, the revolution was over, though not officially dead until the 2004 midterm election. Gingrich was so weakened by 1998 that he couldn’t even lead the party during the Lewinsky scandal. By the end of that year, his own party forced him out of office. Originally, Bob Livingstone was picked to lead the party into the 2000 elections, but that idea fell through (for details, google it). Gingrich’s ultimate replacement was Dennis Hastert. Hastert, however, wasn’t the leader of the GOP. That designation went to Tom DeLay, and republicans know how he turned out. Ironically, if Dick Cheney had not been named Secretary of Defense under George H.W. Bush in 1989, it would’ve been him and not Gingrich that was first in line for Speaker and likely leadership of the party.

So what do I think of a possible Gingrich candidacy? I would welcome him to the race. Would I jump off the Thompson train to support Gingrich? No. If Thompson failed to last the primaries would I support Gingrich? It’s a possibility. It remains to be seen if he could survive the primaries without being a dead man walking. One of the biggest problems he has is that Hillary Clinton is cruising to the nomination. Gingrich wants to bring a new attitude to the race. I’m all for it, but I doubt the current candidates research teams would play nice with him. Think the press has had a field day scrutinizing Thompson’s every move? It would be that x 10 for Gingrich. Thompson is still playing catch up in organization, learning that you can’t do the virtual campaign without campaigning on foot like the rest of the candidates. Gingrich would undoubtedly have to build a national organization, facing the same problems that plagued Thompson over the summer. Gingrich is another ideas guy who would have to organize quickly, but unlike Thompson, doesn’t have eight months to do so. In the end, it’s really not fair to him. In the 1970’s and 1980’s, campaigns didn’t start until the November preceding the election year. In the last few elections, candidates have declared earlier and earlier, to the point of ridiculousness and leading to public burnout before the primaries have even begun.

Gingrich is a lot of things, but dumb is definitely not one of them. He has gone up against the Clinton’s before and been beaten, or make that badly beaten. The dirt sheets the democrats have on Gingrich are unprecedented. He spent six years being the most hated man by the democrat party during the Clinton era. For those of you who don’t remember the 1990’s or were too young, let me put it this way, Gingrich was roughly as polarizing then as Dick Cheney is today, and much of America still remembers the public image of him quietly crafted by Clinton advisor Dick Morris. Morris is thankfully irrelevant these days, but the damage his surgical dismantling caused Gingrich has not healed, and neither has the damage Gingrich brought upon himself with his own personal behavior.

So, do I think Gingrich will run? In the end, probably not. He has set himself an incredibly high bar of 30 million in one month. He knows it’s not likely, but if he achieved it, why not! Gingrich is admittedly no fan of the current debate process, and is now subject to the same criticism Thompson has been since he declared his candidacy. Do you think Romney and Giuliani will give him a pass when he’s not at the October debates? Of course not, we’ll hear that “Newt doesn’t want to debate the other candidates.” Gingrich’s likely motivation is still to control the agenda of the GOP platform. It is no secret that there have been meetings between Thompson and Gingrich over the summer, and Gingrich has said before that he was waiting on Thompson? When asked whether Gingrich was satisfied with Fred’s candidacy so far, he said, “some good and some bad.” So what is Gingrich waiting for? Well, we’ll find out soon enough, but the Thompson campaign knows. His upcoming stragegy (which race42008 was the second newssource to break, after the Weekly Standard) will be unveiled before the end of October. The punchline… “Where were you during the Revolution of 1994?” Gingrich’s strategy, one way or another, will again be a part of the debate, with or without its architect. It is possible that his flirtation with running is meant to push Thompson towards his political ideas quickly, or he may just be itching to jump back into the national race. Either way, I welcome him back to prominence and possibly the national spotlight. Before Thompson decided that he might run, I was leaning towards Gingrich, and I’m happy to have him involved as a candidate.

What does a possible Gingrich run mean to me as an unflinching Thompson supporter? He becomes my backup candidate, along with one or two others, who I would have no problem supporting if Thompson doesn’t succeed.

Romney pandering to the right

Speaking in Michigan over the last couple days Romney continues to try and make voters believe they are conservative.  Romney was quoted as saying: “Change must begin with us,” in reference to GOP overspending and scandals and challenges the GOP to “put our own house in order.”  This from a man that balanced the budget in Massachusetts by adding $500 million in fees, this from a man that proposed and signed socialized healthcare for Massachusetts. 

Romney goes further to say “When Republicans act like Democrats, America loses,” I agree with that, but it’s interesting that this comes from the candidate who has done more to act like a Democrat than a Republican.  As an example Romney on his campaign website in 2002 (from Mass Resistance):

“He [Romney] is a supporter of the federal assault weapons ban.” 
- Romney 2002 campaign website

Regarding the Brady Bill which required waiting periods to buy a handgun, Romney stated, “I don’t think [the waiting period] will have a massive effect on crime but I think it will have a positive effect.”
- Boston Herald, 8/1/1994

In 2004, Romney issued an official state proclamation celebrating “Gay Youth Pride Day” even though there was no legal reason requiring him to do this.   The proclamation proudly touted “landmark” gay rights legislation in Massachusetts and boasted of supporting “the Commonwealth’s gay and lesbian youth through school-based and educational programs.”

In 2002, Romney responded to the National Abortion Rights Action League’s  candidate survey: ”I respect and will protect a woman’s right to choose. This choice is a deeply personal one. Women should be free to choose based on their own beliefs, not mine and not the government’s.  The truth is, no candidate in the governor’s race in either party would deny women abortion rights.”

Mr. Romney is correct that when Republicans act like Democrats America loses, the problem for Romney is that he has been more Democrat than Republican in his “experience” as a chief executive.  I have been accused of being anti-Romney, let me say clearly that yes I am against Romney winning the Republican nomination, he’s not conservative and we definitely need a conservative in the White House.  This country can’t afford Romney’s type of change.

Technorati Tags: Mitt Romney

100 years later

Theodore Roosevelt on immigration.

“In the first place, we should insist that if the immigrant who comes here in good faith becomes an American and assimilates himself to us, he shall be treated on an exact equality with everyone else, for it is an outrage to discriminate against any such man because of creed, or birthplace, or origin. But this is predicated upon the person’s becoming in every facet an American, and nothing but an American…There can be no divided allegiance here. Any man who says he is an American, but something else also, isn’t an American at all. We have room for but one flag, the American flag… We have room for but one language here, and that is the English language… and we have room for but one sole loyalty and that is a loyalty to the American people.”

Theodore Roosevelt 1907

In today’s society I guess we would have to call him a racist and a bigot if we follow the left…

Fred Thompson: Government On the Brink

First off, I am not Al Gore. I cannot read through pages and pages of policy details without falling asleep. However, I am providing links to Fred Thompson’s 2 volume report, titled Government On the Brink: The Root Causes of Federal Waste and Mismanagement. It has been recently republished for the campaign, but costs around $25.00. So if you are interested, here are the links, legal and free. Thompson has regularly brought up the report this year, and gives some insight into why he is well thought of in the GAO sector, and his experience in government waste management.

Here are some highlights of a seemingly prophetic letter to the editor of Government Executive Magazine, written by Paul C. Light, Director of governmental studies at the Brookings institute, dated August 1, 2001:

Tennessee Republican Fred Thompson done his share to help clean up American politics. Thompson has also done his share to make the federal government work. He has been a tireless watchdog of agency mismanagement, but has avoided the gimmickry that has characterized so much Republican rhetoric on fraud, waste and abuse.
…
Moreover, short of some unanticipated disaster, George W. Bush will run for re-election in 2004, which means that Thompson will have to wait for 2008 to mount his own run for the presidency. Had Gore won the 2000 election, Republicans already would be coalescing around Thompson as a front-runner for 2004.
…
Thompson no doubt is tired of talking about government failure, too. Two years ago, he identified $19 billion that federal agencies had misplaced. This year, he found another $25 billion. The names and agencies may change, but the stories remain the same. Medicare still pays for services provided to dead people and the Internal Revenue Service continues to send refunds to citizens who owe back taxes. The federal “high risk” list of programs most vulnerable to mismanagement has grown from 14 in 1990 to 23 today, with eight of the original 14 still on the list.
…
It also is entirely possible that Vice President Dick Cheney will step down from the Republican ticket in 2004, opening the job for Thompson. Bush is not likely to forgive McCain for his flirtations with the Democrats, and Secretary of State Colin Powell has already had his chance. That leaves Thompson and a host of lesser pretenders, none of whom has his star quality or campaign ability.
…
Thompson’s report, “Government at the Brink,” did more than just inventory the problems, however. It also provided an easily accessible analysis of causes and solutions, most notably the projected retirement of between a third and a half of the federal workforce. Unless the federal government figures out a way to get the right employees both hired and motivated, Thompson argues, the federal government will start to feel the pinch of poor performance in every corner, from mishandled Social Security checks to ever-lengthening delays at every point of citizen service.

Thompson’s report includes an analysis of the four biggest challenges facing the federal government:

• Workforce Management
• Financial Management
• Information Technology Management
• Overlap and Duplication

Here is some insight written by Thompson as to what to look for in the report:

• Political leadership: The President and Congress must make clear in word and deed that resolving these management problems is one of their priorities, and that they will keep after the agencies and the government’s key management agency, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), until the job is done.
• Agency follow-up: OMB must establish specific performance goals, measures, strategies, and timetables to resolve the problems. They should use as a starting point potential solutions that have already been identified.
• Investing in improvements: As part of their improvement strategies, agencies and the OMB must identify funding needed to resolve the problems and Congress must be willing to provide it. If done right, relatively modest investments in improvements will repay themselves many times over.
• Linking funding to results: Both the President and the Congress need to insist on reliable performance information to determine what’s working and what’s not, and then hold agencies and programs accountable where it counts - in their budgets. Where programs overlap, we should concentrate our resources on those that work best or can be made to work best. The fact that a program isn’t performing well doesn’t automatically mean it should be defunded. Maybe it needs a legislative fix or even more funding. However, letting non-performing programs simply continue as is should not be an option.

So, without further ado, here are the links to the report by then-Chairman of Government Affairs Fred Thompson (pdf warning):

Volume I: Urgent Federal Government Management Problems Facing the Bush Administration (70 pages)

Volume II: An Agency by Agency Examination of Federal Government Problems Facing the Bush Administration (135 pages)

Scared of government healthcare

After listening to the pandering by Edwards, Obama, and Hillary on the subject of healthcare I don’t want to see any of these three elected.  Having said that one thing that drives fear into conservatives nearly as fast as “President Hillary” is the headline on Drudge “Bush Wants Universal Health Coverage Before Leaving Office”.

The last thing I want right now is the President in this debate.  Let this be the debate for the 2008 elections, but I am sorry when it comes to domestic items, immigration, prescription drugs, etc, the President doesn’t have a lot of credibility on this issue.  We see a growing bureaucracy with every government program.

Getting the government involved in healthcare is the last thing the government needs to be doing.  Mr. President, stay as far away from this debate as you can, and concentrate on Iran. 

Healthcare lunacy and pandering

So the world waited for the much anticipated Hillary healthcare plan and as expected it uses words like choice, tax credits, cost control, etc to mask what it really does.

Hillary’s top policy adviser Neera Tandenb was quoted as saying “It puts the consumer in the driver’s seat by offering more choices and lowering costs”.  Actually it puts the consumer in the back seat with Hillary in the drivers seat driving us over a cliff.  This $110 Billion dollar a year boondoggle creates another federal bureaucracy because we don’t have enough of those.

One of the first glaring examples of the idiocy of this plan is that it mandates coverage for everyone.   You will not have the power to choose not to have coverage.  Many young people starting out elect to not have coverage because they are young and generally healthy.  So this removes choice.

Next we move on to the employer, we give small business another tax to keep track of and of course they get to pay for this in large part because at the end of the day it will be business that pays for it and in turn will have to reduce employees and raise prices of goods and services to pay for it.

Hillary thinks that she will remove the “Bush tax cuts on the rich” to pay for it.  Actually the correct term is the “Clinton tax increase on the middle class”, but that aside she wants to raise taxes thereby reducing the amount of revenue the government has to pay for this “plan”

As for Hillary’s assertion that this will cost only $110 Billion a year I have a rule when it comes to democrat math.  Whatever they say a program will cost double that number and it will be closer to reality so we can expect this to be a $220 Billion program when it is finally forced upon us.

Just another example that choice to Democrats only extends to killing children, not their healthcare.

Technorati Tags: Hillary Clinton, Healthcare, tax cuts

Next Page »