Newt hit buzz saw in meeting with Right leaders

Washington Examiner ^ | Thursday December 8, 2011

[Bigtigermike]

A flattering account of a meeting earlier this week in which former House Speaker Newt Gingrich met with a group of 63 conservative leaders is prompting angry reactions among at least some of the attendees.

The Conservative HQ story described Gingrich's exchange with Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli in terms suggesting it was anything but tense:

"One of the earliest and toughest questions came from Virginia Attorney General Cuccinelli who noted many of the ideas Speaker Gingrich had championed seemed like they might end-up growing government.  'How can we be sure, what’s the restraint on you that these ideas won’t end up being more big government?'

"Speaker Gingrich replied to laughter that 'there’s nothing to restrain a President from doing something dumb, but I trust the people in this room to tell me if that is the case.' But then he noted more seriously that, 'I’m a Federalist.  I look to the Federalist Papers and the Constitution to guide me and restrain government.'"

But an attendee stated that "Cuccinelli had five followup questions and it was like a prosecutor cross-examining a defendant. Newt kept trying to change the subject, but Cuccinelli wouldn't back down."

[.....]

Another heated exchange occurred when the American Conservative Union's Donald Devine challenged Gingrich's support of President George W. Bush's prescription drug benefit.

"Devine said 'we had the votes to beat it, but then you went to the Republican Study Committee the day before the vote and turned it around. Now we have you to thank for the third biggest entitlement in the budget, so how can you ask us to support you".

In response, Gingrich claimed that Sen. John Kerry, would have defeated Bush in the 2004 election had the new Medicare drug benefit not been pushed by the president and approved by a Republican Congress.

[skeeter]

What I am saying is pitch your favorite candidate, but lay off the bashing of the other guy's. Personally, IMO the ones running aren't conservative enough. But I'll support the most conservative.

In the meantime I refuse to do the democrats work for them by trashing any other candidate. One of them will face Obama in the general election, and thats who I'll end up voting for. I don't want them so badly damaged that Obama slides back in. Although I'm sure someone will disagree, NO ONE is as bad as he is.

[DoughtyOne]

I'm not saying these things to give you a hard time.  I'm trying to raise an important concept.

What I am saying is pitch your favorite candidate, but lay off the bashing of the other guy's.

Please explain to me how I can support my own guy, if I can't say why I prefer them over another candidate.  Why is it wrong for me to point out Leftist things our candates have done?  Don't we want to avoid putting someone like that in office?

Personally, IMO the ones running aren't conservative enough. But I'll support the most conservative.

Please explain to me how we win with 66 to 75%ers when within 20 years they will have implemented 80 to 90% of the Left's agenda for them.  And that doesn't even address turning things around and moving the goverment back to the right.

In the meantime I refuse to do the democrats work for them by trashing any other candidate.

Isn't supporting candidates that will implement 80 to 90% of the Left's agenda for them over the next 20 years, actually doing the Democrats work for them?

One of them will face Obama in the general election, and thats who I'll end up voting for.

Okay, perhaps I'm not being clear here.  If there isn't another Democrat elected by 2032, our people could actually implement 80 to 90% of the Lefts agenda, and that's if our guys act as true Conservatives 66 to 75% of the time.  Most folks would say that's a fairly good percentage.  75% of the time?  That's more than most people hope for.  None the less, over twenty years that means you've implemented almost all the Left's agenda for them, well at least 75 to 80%.

Problem one:  Our folks don't strike down or role back Leftist or problematic legislation.  (Housing, lending, Wall Street example)
Problem two: Our folks don't implement with vigor our own legislation.
Problem three: We actually implement Leftist policy, that once it is passed, nobody will strike down.  (Medicare Part-D)

I don't want them so badly damaged that Obama slides back in.

I'm not interested in putting him back in either, but we absolutely must start electing real Conservatives to elective office.  If we don't, we are doomed as surely as if Obama were to serve the next five terms.

Although I'm sure someone will disagree, NO ONE is as bad as he is.

No they aren't.  I agree with that.  The problem is, we still implement some Leftist policy under the Republican banner.

Whose administration looked on as the banking, lending, real estate melt-down transitioned from problematic to full melt-down?  Whose party had the White House and Senate majority for six of eight years leading up to it?

A true Conservative would have stepped in and prevented this.  A 66 to 75%er didn't bother.

If we don't refuse to play the game the way it has been played, we will wind up with 80 to 90% of the Left's agenda implemented by 2032.

Look at prayer in schools.  Look at the way Islam is respected vs Christianity.  Look at who pulls more weight, illegals or citizens.  Look at the election corruption.  Look at the blatant fascism that sees our government taking management positions at some leading corporations, or on Wall Street.  Do you hear any of our candiates promising to end this?

Do you honestly think any of this will be rolled back by a 66 to 75%er?  What about the plan to deploy a division of our military on U.S. soil?  Do you hear any of our folks saying we're not going to do that?

I respect your position because I have held it, advocated for it.  I have had to finally come to the conclusion I was wrong.

We can't go on this way.

[TexasTransplant]

****** “ John Gibson is a Romney fan “ *********

I call BS on that .... John Gibson is a Campaign Sign with a Radio Show and is NON STOP Mitt Sales Pitch ...

Gibson can call himself anything he wants but he was a BIG McCain supporter and he is Rabidly behind Romney

I have my own opinion of Gibson (John would not find it flattering)

TT

[skeeter]

I'm going in the opposite direction, DO, before I wanted to kick the GOP establishment in the groin but right now I'll settle for the lesser of evils. Fight the battle in the primaries, ok, but in the end my objective remains the same.

Its a practical matter. Since this bastard in the WH is clearly intent upon pissing away the wealth accrued by generations of Americans, is spending my grandkids' earnings & tearing down my country as fast as he possibly can with what time he has left to do so I want him out and now. I will not help him win another term, not in any way shape, or form. Not in the least. As much as I hate to admit it, right now I'll settle for the slow road to Gomorrah the republicans typically take rather than the express lane.

We don't have the luxury of sending the GOP establishment a message this time. Because I sincerely believe that if this man has another term it will be over for us. There will be no opportunity to reform the republican party, no conservative savior, nothing. It will be over.

The ironic thing for me is I living in CA I won't even have a chance to cast a meaningful vote in the primaries.

[The_Reader_David]

I think Newt's point may be sound. The Bush/Kerry election would have gone the other way if senior citizens had tipped Florida the other way. Since Senator McCain has made Tolkien's Lord of the Rings a metaphor for the Tea Party, might I suggest the words of Gandalf to Frodo are apt here:

Yet it is not our part to master all the tides of the world, but to do what is in us for the succour of those years wherein we are set, uprooting the evil in the fields that we know, so that those who live after may have clean earth to till. What weather they shall have is not ours to rule.

[DoughtyOne]

I'm going in the opposite direction, DO, before I wanted to kick the GOP establishment in the groin but right now I'll settle for the lesser of evils. Fight the battle in the primaries, ok, but in the end my objective remains the same.

I'm not going to give you a hard time for that.  I think there are arguments to be made for it.  I used to make them  Then I realized they could loft the likes of John McCain, and we'd still be forced into voting for him because he wasn't as bad as Obama.

As bad as Obama is, I absolutely shudder to think what McCain would be doing in our name right now.  We wouldn't have the House  We wouldn't be contemplating a possible Senate majority.

PTL, that what Obama is doing right now, is not being done by our side, in our name, destroying our brand.  It was eight years of that that put him in the White House.

Its a practical matter. Since this bastard in the WH is clearly intent upon pissing away the wealth accrued by generations of Americans, is spending my grandkids' earnings & tearing down my country as fast as he possibly can with what time he has left to do so I want him out and now. I will not help him win another term, not in any way shape, or form. Not in the least. As much as I hate to admit it, right now I'll settle for the slow road to Gomorrah the republicans typically take rather than the express lane.

Okay, well at least you know what you're buying off on.  I too am truly very concerned about what Obama has the power to do right now.  I am also extemely concerned about what any Republican can achieve, if only they try to do it in our name.  If we should by some strike of luck get the House and the Senate, can you imagine John McCain being in there getting a rubber stamp for whatever he wanted to do?  How will you like it if Mittens gets in under those cirumstances?

Who would stand in his way to implement squishy Lefist leaning policy.  That administration could be as big a windfall to the Left as to us.  Republican House and Senate could neuter Obama.  It won't neuter our folks.

We don't have the luxury of sending the GOP establishment a message this time. Because I sincerely believe that if this man has another term it will be over for us. There will be no opportunity to reform the republican party, no conservative savior, nothing. It will be over.

Frankly, I thought the same thing under Clinton.  Then we replaced him, and things actually got worse.  Our debt was around $5.9 billion when Bush was sworn in.

The ironic thing for me is I living in CA I won't even have a chance to cast a meaningful vote in the primaries.

I won't either.  It sucks.

I appreciate your thoughts on this.  We may not agree, but we do understand the stakes and share the utmost concern about where we are headed.

[skeeter]

Who would stand in his way to implement squishy Lefist leaning policy. That administration could be as big a windfall to the Left as to us. Republican House and Senate could neuter Obama. It won't neuter our folks.

One final comment... as squishy as he was, at least Bush was sensitive to pressure from the right. Obama, on the other hand, currently is going nuts with the EO and the media right along with him. No one is stopping him - not the moderate wing of the democrat party (which is a fable) & least of all the republican in congress.

He has to go in part because I do not trust the republicans to stop him.

[MontaniSemperLiberi]

“In response, Gingrich claimed that Sen. John Kerry, would have defeated Bush in the 2004 election had the new Medicare drug benefit not been pushed by the president and approved by a Republican Congress.”

For the umpteenth time Newt says that we have to grow government to shrink it.

Nonsensical.

[MontaniSemperLiberi]

According to the CBO, it has cost us about $40B to $50B a year since it was implemented.

http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/121xx/doc12187/ChangesBaselineProjections.pdf

[jmaroneps37]

American Conservative Union’s Donald Devine = David Keene (under investigation for a few million dollars that disappeared) = RINO of long standing who manipulated his own score card for Tokyo Rove and told us, with a straight face, Senior Amnesty- Mel Martinez was a conservative that should be elected head of the RNC - and didn’t THAT work out well?

[DoughtyOne]

With regard to the ding-bat he first nominated to the Supreme Court, he finally listened. With regard to our war execution, he finally listened. With regard to No Child Left Behind, Compassionate Conservatism, Medicare Part-D, and the move to make illegals legal, not so much.

Bush did what he thought was right, but he was not a Conservative at his core, and that got him into serious trouble. That got us into serious trouble.

Obama is going nuts with the E.O. There’s not denying it. He’s acting the part of a tin pot dictator. Not so much as a peep emits from the throats of the Republicans. Just shameful.

Yes, the idea of a Blue-Dog or moderate wing of the Democrat Party a fable. I’d probably go farther and label it a downright fraud, complete propaganda. I’m sure you would too.

I don’t trust the Republicans to reign him in. I don’t trust the Republican to reign their own it either. They sure didn’t Bush.

Hey take care Skeeter. I enjoy talking to you.

[Interesting Times]

In response, Gingrich claimed that Sen. John Kerry, would have defeated Bush in the 2004 election had the new Medicare drug benefit not been pushed by the president and approved by a Republican Congress.

Right. The 2004 election was all about the new Medicare drug benefit.

[Interesting Times]

I think Newt's point may be sound. The Bush/Kerry election would have gone the other way if senior citizens had tipped Florida the other way.

Are you confusing the 2000 election and the 2004 election? Florida was extremely close in 2000 (eventually Bush won by 537 votes), but in 2004 he won Florida by nearly 400,000 votes.

[The_Reader_David]

The point is, Newt was basing support for the Medicare Prescription coverage prospectively on its effect on the 2004 election, which had not yet happened. The last time out FL had been a squeaker. Was the Bush big win in FL of 2004 in part due to his passage of Medicare Prescription coverage? Do you have evidence to the contrary? And even if you do, do you have strong enough polling data from the period when the bill was being debated and voted on to argue against Newt’s take on it with information he could have accessed at the time, not on the basis of 20-20 hindsight?

[Interesting Times]

Newt may have believed that Medicare would be the difference in the election, but it’s pretty difficult to make a case that it actually was.

[Interesting Times]

Was the Bush big win in FL of 2004 in part due to his passage of Medicare Prescription coverage? Do you have evidence to the contrary?

Statistical evidence, yes. Gore defeated Bush nationally in the popular vote by about half a percent. Bush defeated Kerry by about 2.5 percent - call it a 3% improvement overall. In Florida, Bush went from dead even to plus 5, for a 5% improvement. The Medicare bill may account for some or even all the difference between Bush's national improvement of 3% and his 5% increase in Florida. That's not enough to be the deciding factor, unless you think the Medicare bill also swung more than 3% of the vote to Bush nationally, which seems unlikely.