Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

MORE ARROWS, FEW PIONEERS
Fiedor Report On the News #295 ^ | 11-10-02 | Dough Fiedor

Posted on 11/09/2002 10:14:23 AM PST by forest

Most of us can still remember when the Republicans won Congress. The "Republican Revolution" they called it. They had great ideas and big plans. From the very first day, that revolution started off with a bang.

Whatever happened to that? Anyone remember? No? Well, we do.

Generally speaking, the left made fun of them and instead of standing up and fighting for what they said they believed in, they ran for cover. Which means, many of those good ideas, most of the promises to the American people, were lost.

Below is an article published here on April 11, 1997 concerning that Republican revolution titled, "Why the Revolution Fizzled." Read it and weep. We lost a lot there.

Now we have another chance. But, if we do not join together to constantly demand that those we just elected actually follow the Republican Party platform of smaller government, less regulations and lower taxes, the left will again frighten Republicans in Congress into approving the Democrat's socialist programs.

Republicans in Congress need to know that they have our support for downsizing the regulatory bureaucracy and lowering taxes. The liberal corporate media must be continuously told that the vast majority of American people support these actions. And, those in the Democratic Party must be told to go sit down and shut up because they lost.

Otherwise, the same obnoxious mouths on the left will start the same old distracting problems and, again, nothing benefiting the Liberty of the American people will be accomplished.

=============================

They started out with a bang, then ended in a whimper. One reason was that they forgot one basic premise that applies to anyone pioneering new ideals: "The Pioneers get the arrows!"

It's true in every field. Attempt to change the status quo and those comfortable with the current system will protest. And if, as in this case, none of the people supporting change are accustomed to being in a position of strong leadership, the pioneering movement can expect stern and relentless criticism from the previous leaders. It's even worse in politics.

But there's more to it than just that. Not only did these pioneers not prepare for the vicious attack from the far left, they even neglected to protect their core -- their rallying point.

Many thousands of us -- maybe many hundreds of thousands of us -- have watched, listened to and cheered Newt Gingrich over the years. His was the one lone voice from Washington speaking of individual liberty, and freedom from government control. His was the only voice in Washington daring to recommend texts such as "The Federalist Papers" and "Democracy in America," as examples of how our government should be operated.

Yes, Newt had a lot of us voters out here in "fly-over country" convinced that if we could elect just a few more Republicans to Congress, the Republican Revolution would rise up and squelch that ever-oppressive liberal leviathan we call a federal government.

Newt had us convinced that, through the Republican Party, America could again return to the pre-Roosevelt style of limited federal government that made this country so great. Republicans would downsize government by firing a few federal agencies, boards and commissions.

Republicans would recoup the savings from smaller government and reflect them in a lower tax burden for all Americans. Republicans would remove most of those womb to tomb regulations stymying progress and liberty. And Americans might once again pursue their own idea of personal happiness through individual freedom and the opportunity to live their lives as they see fit.

In other words, Newt promised us that, through Republican control of Congress, America would once again have the government intended by the authors of our Constitution. Then, at last, that ever-extending heavy hand of government restriction would be slapped back to where it belongs.

It took Newt a few years to get enough of us to believe him. But, believe him we did. And finally, Republicans gained control of both houses of Congress.

The problem was, the newly elected Republican team was not nearly as cohesive and dependable as the new leadership hoped. Consequently, when the liberal establishment's arrows started flying in the direction of the "pioneers," many of the Republicans immediately cowered, and ran for cover.

Instead of protecting their core, their leader, the person most responsible for getting them there, many Republicans left Newt out front to catch the worst of the liberal's attack. Instead of launching a strong, unified counter attack in support of their ideals and their leader, most Republicans ducked and hid, leaving Newt alone to field the onslaught from the left. Instead of charging in force in support of core issues -- important issues like a reduction in oppressive regulations, an end to pork-barrel spending, a reduction of the bloated federal budget, and repeal of oppressive laws -- many of the elected Republicans groveled to the liberals with a self-indulgent "go along to get along" posture. And in so doing, they left Newt hanging in the breeze, totally unprotected.

Instead of unified support, there was hardly a peep from elected Republicans when liberals charged Newt with over 500 bogus ethics violations. There was seldom a word from the elected Republicans for the three long years that the administration and the liberal press launched a coordinated attack to malign Newt's character. Nor is there support today when make-believe Republicans in the press, like William Kristol of the American Standard, go after Newt.

Most of the Republican cadre are hiding, covering their butts. They're afraid that if they come to Newt's defense, take a position, or make a stand, they might risk their cushy jobs.

And, in a nutshell, that's what this all amounts to.

These are little more than professional politicians protecting their positions. Most have been vetted enough that we voters know that they understand what is right. For sure, they can mouth the ideals of individual freedom, liberty, smaller government and lower taxes. The problem with them is obvious: Many have neither the intestinal fortitude nor the personal integrity to actually stand up and fight for what is right. Not only are they not leaders, they are not even dependable followers.

Newt launched the campaign that put the Republicans in control. Newt spearheaded the "Republican Revolution." But, as soon as the war got a little warm, as soon as the criticism from the left got a little hot, a whole cadre of cowards deserted their posts and abandoned their leader.

Americans want freedom from this over oppressive federal government. We want lower taxes, less government and full disclosure of everything the government does. Newt, and only a handful of elected Republicans, still show the courage necessary to publicly profess these ideals.

When duty called, the others deserted the field of honor. Indeed, they preferred to protect their personal position, rather than the American public and our United States Constitution.  

 END


TOPICS: Activism/Chapters; Constitution/Conservatism; Crime/Corruption; Culture/Society; Editorial; Government; Philosophy; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: federalistpapers; gingrichframed; lackintegrity; lessregbur; lessregs; liberalleviathan; lowertaxes; republicanchickens; republicanrevo; smallergov; statusquo
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-22 next last
Remember the "Republican Revolution"? When the far left laughed, Republicans ran for cover and deserted Newt. Gingrich had promised that the Republican Party would get us back to the original Constitution. But his backers flaked out. Instead of unified support, there was hardly a peep from elected Republicans when liberals charged Newt with over 500 bogus ethics violations.

Now we have another chance.

1 posted on 11/09/2002 10:14:23 AM PST by forest
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: forest
I don't agree. Before he folded, Newt was a real hero. He did a superb job as leader of the opposition and planner of the Republican revolution. But he was far too loud-mouthed once he got into power. He kept acting as if he was in the opposition. When you get into power, you don't keep ranting, you shut your mouth and do things while you can. After he assumed the leadership, his tone was all wrong.

Newt had a real majority and a clear vote of approval. The Republicans today have also had a vote of approval, but they have a small majority and an important election coming up in two years. They should concentrate on DOING things, not ranting. Most especially they need to pass judicial appointments, tax cuts, and some pro-life bills such as partial birth abortion.

I understand your frustration. But we need to set the priorities and get them done, above all else. And do it in such a way that we are in a stronger position after the next election.
2 posted on 11/09/2002 10:20:33 AM PST by Cicero
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: forest
Now we have another chance.

I agree. And while Newt was important, he was compromised by his relationship with his girlfriend. With Repubs everywhere, there is no excuse not to start dismantling the welfare state. And the leftists will have less ability to make noise now that the Net is available everywhere, unfiltered.

3 posted on 11/09/2002 10:32:01 AM PST by ikka
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: forest
 
Newt launched the campaign that put the Republicans in control.
Newt spearheaded the "Republican Revolution." But, as soon as
the war got a little warm, as soon as the criticism from the left got a
little hot, a whole cadre of cowards deserted their posts and
abandoned their leader.

Exactly and precisely.  The bluenose purists who trashed
then deserted Newt Gingrich did as much harm to this
country as Bill Clinton.

4 posted on 11/09/2002 10:38:20 AM PST by gcruse
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: forest
"...join together to constantly demand ... smaller government, less regulations and lower taxes,"

Where did these issues surface in the 2002 election? Other than making GW's tax cut permanent, he's talking about a 1994 Contract With America agenda.

We're holding on to both houses by our fingernails, and he wants to start cutting federal agencies. A good idea to be sure (as it was in 1994), but I don't see the mandate.

5 posted on 11/09/2002 10:45:34 AM PST by robertpaulsen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: forest
Now we have another chance.

The Newt being left as a target was unfortunate. But it was my understanding that while the freshman class of '94 was VERY enthusiastic, it was the Old Guard who was reluctant in implementing the new(t) vision. (Ha! I made a funny!)

Seriously, EVERYONE in congress needs to take a stand. The article kind of implies that it was the freshmen who didn't protect.

Pookie & ME

6 posted on 11/09/2002 10:48:04 AM PST by Pookie Me
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: forest
I saw some Senator on FOX say the Republicans still need 60 votes to pass the important bills.
Can anyone address his comment?
Which bills need a simple majority, and which need more?
7 posted on 11/09/2002 10:53:46 AM PST by muleskinner
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Cicero
Before he folded, Newt was a real hero. He did a superb job as leader of the opposition and planner of the Republican revolution. But he was far too loud-mouthed once he got into power. He kept acting as if he was in the opposition. When you get into power, you don't keep ranting, you shut your mouth and do things while you can. After he assumed the leadership, his tone was all wrong.

This is a key point. When you are in power, it is best to cook the frog slowly and quietly. Rather than loudly declare we are going to shut down certain agencies, it is better just to reduce their funding slowly - say 5% per year. This is something that congress can do while just saying they are being fiscally prudent. The agencies then have to start doing layoffs - or cut salaries. It is perfectly possible to cut salaries (as long as it is across the board) while the civil servant keep their jobs. If the agency chooses not to do that, then they can just cut back on hiring. Slow but steady this shrinks the budget and the intrusiveness of the agencies.

In addition, when the Homeland Security Agency is formed and those 170,000 bureaucrats are transfered in - just make sure that the total budget for the agency is less than the combined budgets of the agencies folded in. And then layoff redudant employees - of which there will surely be a bunch.

No need to make a big deal out if it and energize the opposition, and make people think the Republicans are big meanies. I say again, cook the frog slowly and quietly.

8 posted on 11/09/2002 10:54:44 AM PST by dark_lord
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: ikka
And while Newt was important, he was compromised by his relationship with his girlfriend.

I was also disturbed by the way that Newt cashed in on his popularity with the original book deal. Even though it was legal (Rush shouted that from the mountaintops everyday), it was unseemly, and I felt it robbed Newt of some moral authority.

I know there will be arguments regarding Hillary's book, and we all know that her advances are a political payoff (she'll never earn royalties, because that book will never sell enough copies to pay back the advances).

9 posted on 11/09/2002 11:05:19 AM PST by Night Hides Not
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: forest
The Republicans passed every article of their Contract With America. Clintoon even signed some of them (welfare reform).
10 posted on 11/09/2002 11:52:04 AM PST by TenthAmendmentChampion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Cicero
It is true both that Newt and his team had a lot of great ideas, did a lot of good, and made some fundamental mistakes. I think you can classify the mistakes of newly elected powers as : Over-reaching; under-reaching; failure to keep promises; lack of unity; failure to constantly engage and support your position. In the end, the failures of the Republican Congress were in communicating and supporting their agenda, against the Clinton spin machine. While, in some cases attempting to do more than was possible, this overreaching was not bad politically, except in the case of Medicare, where Clinton used it to bash republicans.

In fact, ANYTHING the Republicans did to address budget and spending priorities was spun by the Democrats as evil. some worked for Democrats(medicare) and some didnt (welfare reform). Guess what? they will try that again next year. Just as cleland tried and failed this election. if we position ourselves right (and Bush seems to be quite good at that on many issues), the Democrats will merely marginalize themselves with their carping.

In the end, the media was able to tear down Newt, but that was only the ability to go after one polarizing figure who was conservative and not cosnervative ideals. The Republicans of 1994 are mostly still in Congress, and conservatives make up the majority of the Republican party. We should be pushing for conservatives ideas in bills, the end to funding left-wing groups by federal govt, etc. Don Nickles is new budget chairman, it is a good step.

The WISE use of power would be to: Keep promises; stay unified; constantly communicate your vision and ideas; neither under-reach (do too little) nor overreach (try to do too much and failing eg, like Clinton's failure in 1994 on health care). Rather, we should set a consevative agenda, make a reasonable legislative plan that American voters will support, and work to get it passed. I see Energy, taxcut permanence, Homeland Security and about 100 new federal judges are needed.

Bush used his politial capital brilliantly before the election. I hope he uses it brilliantly after the election to help the economy and advance the conservative agenda.

11 posted on 11/09/2002 2:26:02 PM PST by WOSG
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: TenthAmendmentChampion
That is a good point. newt and Co. in the GOP of 1994 deserver VERY HIGH MARKS FOR KEEPING CAMPAIGN PROMISES, even though Clinton did his best to undermine and discredit what they were doing.

Given that record, we should be able to do a LOT MORE for conservative ideals with both chambers friendly and a Republican President.
12 posted on 11/09/2002 2:27:41 PM PST by WOSG
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: muleskinner
Many bills will have to overcome a filibuster, if the Democrats so choose to do that, but you have to ask yourself which bills will the Democrats fight on. They fought on the Homeland Secuirty bill, and that alone probably cost them Georgia in the Senate.

They can fight tax cut permanence, but they have almost 20 seats up in 2004.

Democrats will have to pick and choose their fights. Dashcle obstructed everything good, and he deservedly lost the majority position over it.
13 posted on 11/09/2002 2:30:49 PM PST by WOSG
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: dark_lord
Yes, we should not try to do everything at once, but we should think about those policies that will create POSITIVE political 'virtuous cycles' and those policies that will not help long-term (ie cause opposition, splintering etc.). We should make fundamental changes that are mostly 'under the surface', rather than just the stuff that is 'feel good' for bumper stickers.

- dynamic scoring for budgets, to favor tax policies that are progrowth
- Defund the left: Violence against women's act is funding lots of feminist/leftist cr*p. So is some community re-investment/ACORN act funding(jesse jackson shakedown).
- we should end other shakedowns that favor the left's patronage. Remember most of the Democrat party is a PATRONAGE PARTY AT THE FEDERAL LEVEL. This is what homeland security is about. it is why it was vital for president to win that fight. It showed the Democrats put patronage above patriotism. We now need to go back to the airport screeners and open that back up to non-govt employees, shrink federal workforce.
- In particular, look at Indian affairs, look at HUD, look at Energy, there are huge amounts in the discretionary budget that can and should be scaled back.
- We should rethink the farm bill, the vermont dairy compact, etc. any subsidy that favors a democrat we should go after. we can reap huge benefits by defunding their pork: their sponsors know that their money going to democrats wont help; we save taxpayer money; and the democrats have less to crow about.

More than that... we should have a long-term plan that says the Federal govt should be less than Y% of GNP. eg, I think Fed Govt should get down to 15% of GNP by 2010. If it has the kind of teeth that Gramm-Rudman used to have, you'd have an interesting

And then challenge the Democrats to support long-term pro-growth policies so that the federal govt can be *larger* since GNP will be larger. That may be interesting.

14 posted on 11/09/2002 2:42:26 PM PST by WOSG
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: WOSG
Good points.
15 posted on 11/09/2002 2:51:50 PM PST by dark_lord
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: forest
Many thousands of us -- maybe many hundreds of thousands of us -- have watched, listened to and cheered Newt Gingrich over the years. His was the one lone voice from Washington speaking of individual liberty, and freedom from government control. His was the only voice in Washington daring to recommend texts such as "The Federalist Papers" and "Democracy in America," as examples of how our government should be operated.

Except for that guy in Texas. What's his name? Oh yeah . . . Ron Paul.

Where's Newt now?

16 posted on 11/09/2002 2:57:56 PM PST by cruiserman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dark_lord
What a great idea! How can we implement it?
17 posted on 11/09/2002 4:22:44 PM PST by PARKFAN
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: WOSG
Love this plan. The Farm Bill is hated by most small farmers in CA and many I know in other ag areas. In our area a Delta Protection Commission (put in place by the state and enforcing layered control over 100,000+ acres)is seeking to put a Resource Conservation & Development program in place thru the Farm Bill. This is a free Federal Agent to help us poor, dumb farmers get grant $$ from the government. No strings! Want to buy a bridge?
18 posted on 11/09/2002 5:01:59 PM PST by PARKFAN
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Memother; Bigun; IronJack; diotima; JohnHuang2; PhiKapMom; Luis Gonzalez
good article
19 posted on 11/10/2002 10:57:13 AM PST by dixie sass
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: forest
The Clinton's purloining of 900+ FBI files had a lot to do with the Republican capitulation after the '94 revolution. This time that extortion will be missing. And the mandate is even more historic than it was under Gingrich. So whatever progress we deferred until this year, this time it's our turn.

This time, cowardice on the part of Republicans should be met with instantaneous outrage from the constituency. This is our moment to shine; let's not let the DNC smokescreen dim our prospects.

20 posted on 11/10/2002 1:52:09 PM PST by IronJack
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-22 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson