Replies

“What I didn’t count on was the complete collapse of the right. For all intents, Conservatism is all but dead in D. C. What did we do with our majority?”

It is really simple. Republicans discovered that in Washington, D.C., the members of the majority party in control could get rich by selling their votes.

In 1980 Ronald Reagan was elected President. Newt Gingrich, elected in 1978, jointed with others to ally with President Reagan and build the Reagan Coalition, the Religious Right, and the Republican majority - the Reagan Revolution - which directly led to the downfall of the Soviet Union, the Contract with America, government reforms, less government, tax cuts, a balanced budget, and the great, long-standing Reagan economy.

Gingrich becomes Speaker of the House and the Democrats create chaos! For the first time in a very long time the Republicans actually had to govern and take responsibility. The Dems were outnumbered.

What happened is Republicans sold their votes. Certain members of the Senate became collaborators with K Stree lobbyists. If you look at the record of Senator R. Santorum, you will see corruption written all over it.

The 1998 budget was scheduled for a $1 Billion cut and congress saw the gravy train leaving the station. No more getting rich at the public trough.

So it became “get rid of Newt Gingrich” even to the extent of manufacturing lies about him. Later, those phony ethics charges were ALL dropped. The last true conservative resigned from his post of Speaker of the House because he could no longer be effective.

Conservatism in Washington, D.C., died because of greed and self-interest.

I think you have it nearly all wrong. It was not conservatism that died, but rather the MSM realizing that it had to more actively defend progressivism. They had dominated the political landscape for decades, and were blindsided by the defeat they received in 1994, which occured largely because of the increase in new media.

In 1994, I thought that what we had was a political problem, and that the majorities in the House and Senate would result in real change. What happened made me reassess my premise. The Republicans tried to make real change, and had some modest sucess. Then, the MSM started attacking them relentlessly, and refusing to allow the conservatives to get their views out.

It became clear that the real problem, and the real power in the country was the MSM, which was overwhelmingly “progressive”, which set the agenda, and who decided what was important and what was not, and how issues should be framed.

Now we are in a battle to create enough new media to overcome the MSM. In many ways, we are winning.

Thanks for the response SatinDoll. Wish I could be more agreeable with parts of it. It will probably sound like I'm unhappy with you. I'm not. I just see some of these things differently.

“What I didn’t count on was the complete collapse of the right. For all intents, Conservatism is all but dead in D. C. What did we do with our majority?”

It is really simple. Republicans discovered that in Washington, D.C., the members of the majority party in control could get rich by selling their votes. Well, I might tone that down a bit, something sure changed things. I wouldn't be surprised if this was a part of it.

In 1980 Ronald Reagan was elected President. Newt Gingrich, elected in 1978, joined with others to ally with President Reagan and build the Reagan Coalition, the Religious Right, and the Republican majority - the Reagan Revolution - which directly led to the downfall of the Soviet Union, the Contract with America, government reforms, less government, tax cuts, a balanced budget, and the great, long-standing Reagan economy. I do believe that in some ways Newt was a good guy later on, but when Reagan was president Newt disagreed with him not infrequently. If you nose around even a little bit, you can find quotes of Newt trashing Reagan big-time, as having the absolute worst policies needed for the time. That was the exact same line used by the Democrats of the day. Then as we all know now, those policies worked exactly as they were intended, very positively. Despite these vicious attacks on Reagan's policy, Newt describes himself as a friend of Reagan. I don't believe for a second Reagan saw it that way at all.

You've got to be careful about some of these crusty old players. John McCain caught himself on camera and had to backtrack, stating that he was out front driving Conservative policy during Reagan's presidency. No he wasn't, unless you consider leading from behind a sound tactic.

As for Newt being pushed out by far Left Republicans, I do believe some Lefty Republicans were against him. I don't think in excess of 50% of the Republicans in Congress were devoted Leftists when Newt left office. There was more to it than Conservative ideology. I don't think the guy works well with others, over the long haul. Help come up with a good idea and push it through over a relatively short time frame, and I think he can be a brilliant asset. Extend the time frame to years, and I think the effective aspect of his leadership suffers. He rubs people the wrong way.

For the record, over the years I have noticed two main traits in Newt. One, he's the best orator of our time, when it comes to making presentations on bedrock historic actions and what they meant to Conservatism. I have been greatly moved by them a number of times. Two, he's one of the biggest disappointments I've ever seen, when it comes to shooting off his mouth on contemporary issues. Countless times, I have seen him submarine sound policy, thinking himself to be smarter than everyone else. And he relishes too much, the idea that he is the sage, and everyone will catch up to him eventually. That's a great tactic, if you're right. Sadly, Newt isn't always right in a contemporary setting.

Yes, he has had some moments of brilliance, and sadly he's had too many moments of ignorance. Ultimately, he's a loose cannon, one you never know when it will go off, or in which direction it will be facing when it does.

Gingrich becomes Speaker of the House and the Democrats create chaos! For the first time in a very long time the Republicans actually had to govern and take responsibility. The Dems were outnumbered.

I believe the chaos was pretty much Bill Clinton's doing. His past finally caught up to him, and leaking information about him and his circle of contacts in the day began airing about the same time. The only defense was to call names and as you said, create chaos.

Part of the push-back from our side was the Speaker of the House, explaining how bad it was for Clinton to be entangled with a young intern. Then you find out that Gingrich himself was entangled with a younger staffer. It just made our side look two-faced. His defense was that he was separated. I may be old school, but separations are my idea of cooling off and trying to make things work. They're not for going out with other people. If you want to do that, finalize the divorce, then do what you want. I'm not a big fan of divorce, but things being what they are today, you can at least handle it on the up and up by contemporary standards.

What happened is Republicans sold their votes. Certain members of the Senate became collaborators with K Street lobbyists. If you look at the record of Senator R. Santorum, you will see corruption written all over it. I'm not sure why you're making these comments. The primary is over. Neither Newt or Rick made it. I'm not privy to everything Rick was involved in, but I do know what Newt was involved in. He was not allowed to take up front royalties for a book, and he took up front royalties for a book. I know Hillary got away with it later on, and her sum was exponentially larger, but that's no defense for our side doing something we knew was wrong. We have to be honest with ourselves.

The 1998 budget was scheduled for a $1 Billion cut and congress saw the gravy train leaving the station. No more getting rich at the public trough. It would probably have to have been more than $1 billion, because $1 billion even in that day was a small sum of money in the overall scheme of things. Were over half the Republicans in the House so corrupt that Newt couldn't stand up to them on Conservative matters alone? No, I'm sorry but I'm not buying it. As popular as Newt was around 1994, by the time he left the luster had worn off. He became very unpopular, and not because he was just too Conservative.

So it became “get rid of Newt Gingrich” even to the extent of manufacturing lies about him. Later, those phony ethics charges were ALL dropped. The last true conservative resigned from his post of Speaker of the House because he could no longer be effective. Look, I'm not here to burst your bubble, but this is not factual. It makes a great story for the campaign trail, but Newt knows this isn't the way it played out.

Conservatism in Washington, D.C., died because of greed and self-interest. Conservatism died out, because the RNC and their local affiliates only helped loft Leftist leaning candidates. The Conservative less well funded candidates are unable to compete. The Republican party has contacts all over. They have well meaning but not well informed or savvy local players with deep pockets. They get them to donate funds to the right guys, and they're off to the races.

I'm not making the case that nobody turns when they go to Washington, D. C., because they obviously do. It's a stark reality that when you go back there, you either play ball to a certain extent with the old guard, or your district withers up and dies on the vine. You either get appointed to decent committees, or you step outside your office right next to the odoriferous janitor's closet.

Our main problem in the House today, is a lack of leadership. The same could be said about the Senate. They Democrats network. The Republicans spout off in ten different directions constantly. You can't shut guys like McCain up. There are a number of politicians in Washington, D. C. just like him on our side. And they're always willing too go on television and expound on the reasoned aspects of Democrat policy, and the fringe nature of more Conservative policy. At times, Newt has played a part in this. It's part of the reason I don't trust him.

Thanks again. Take care.