Posted on 01/22/2010 10:25:12 PM PST by pissant
Golly, I wonder what the reaction in the comments to this bon mot will be.
Gingrich sees the Massachusetts as a boost for his party, but also as a renunciation of go-it-alone by either party, and thinks Republicans would be “clever” to pass a series of relatively non-controversial measures with “huge bipartisan majorities.”
That said, he thinks many Republicans disdain Pelosi so much they simply won’t go along with anything with the speaker’s name on it, even if it serves the party’s larger interests.
“If you are a House member in the [GOP] caucus, I suspect we are about to have a huge argument. We could get clever and work with her…And I think people should work with her… But at that point it becomes a huge problem because nobody trusts her, they distrust her ideology and distrust her because she has run over them so hard…
Insane? Eh, not really. It all depends on how inoffensive the new stripped-down ObamaCare bill is and whether it looks like the Dems really do have the votes this time. If it’s a fait accompli and the reforms are minute, why not take a free kick by voting yes and blowing a hole in the left’s “party of no” crap before the midterms? Then the GOP could boast that not only did it help kill the awful first iteration of ObamaCare, but that when they finally got a good-ish bill, they proved themselves to be “Scott Brown Republicans” or whatever. The problem is, the left is already worried about precisely this scenario and is whining about it to HuffPo:
That the latter strategy [of passing a pared-down bill] is being seriously considered by progressive lawmakers is a testament to how large an albatross health care reform has become for the party. But the worry, for some, is that it could lead to Republicans claming victory.
Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell “will have his whole caucus vote for it and make it a political win for the Republicans,” one well-connected Democratic health care strategist said. “They’ll say, ‘This was the Republican plan from the beginning. We’re glad the Democrats joined us.’ And take all the credit for passing reform.”…
Alternately, some Democrats might welcome such a move. “Hell yeah,” a Democratic congressional aide said. “We would have created a bi-partisan bill. We would have shown leadership. And we’d get credit for that.”
They would get some credit for it, which is the main partisan objection to it on the Republican side. It’s also hard to imagine the circumstances in which Pelosi would need a bunch of GOP votes for a health-care bill. Is she really going to float something that’s so centrist and modest that House progressives would walk away from it, leaving a vacuum for Boehner to fill? I’m skeptical, but if this drags on another week or two and there’s still no clear path ahead for Dems, they might just be desperate enough to try it. The urgent question right now: Should McConnell and Boehner approach Reid and Pelosi with their own compromise plan? At the moment they have as much leverage as they’re every going to get. If they think some sort of legislative accomplishment is important before the midterms, there’s no time like the present to strike.
Elsewhere, my lefty pal Michael Roston is horrified that the Democratic strategist quoted by HuffPo would reduce the health-care issue to such pure partisan politics. To which I say: But why? Hasn’t the goal from the beginning been simply to pass something to placate the left and preserve the Dems’ electoral viability? Politics has always been job one here. Effective health-care reform is an afterthought.
Since the voters rejected him in Georgia, and with true con-artistry, he's insinuated himself into a position of being a "spokesman" for conservatism, an all-knowing statesman and foreign policy expert, an intellectual, a national party leader, and a preacher and perfessor to the right.
Gotta hand it to the guy. He has perservered mightily to become an oracle when he is, indeed, only a mouth.
Like that other con artist, McCain, Gingrich will be with us forever, as impossible to get rid of as that sticky paper on a clown's shoe, then on his hand, then on his shirt, then on his.........
Leni
Get lost Gingrich. This good statist/bad statist meme is getting sickening.
We need a SECOND one.
“I am not for Newt. But, the GOP should offer an alternative health care plan that simply includes TORT reform and inter-state health plan competition.”
I agree with you. What the GOP fails to recognize is that pulling the plug on Obamacare fails to solve the problem, which will recur when insurance premiums escalate at double-digit rates in the next year.
Tort reform, increased competition are helpful, but the real problem is that we still have medicare/medicaid that requires private insurance to cover their shortfall - which becomes more acute every year - driving up the cost of insurance for folks that want to do for themselves.
In the end, if the GOP does nothing, we’ll eventually have universal socialized medicine through the gradual expansion of existing socialist medicare/medicaid.
Leni
The Scorpion and the Frog
One day, a scorpion looked around at the mountain where he lived and decided that he wanted a change. So he set out on a journey through the forests and hills. He climbed over rocks and under vines and kept going until he reached a river.
The river was wide and swift, and the scorpion stopped to reconsider the situation. He couldn’t see any way across. So he ran upriver and then checked downriver, all the while thinking that he might have to turn back.
Suddenly, he saw a frog sitting in the rushes by the bank of the stream on the other side of the river. He decided to ask the frog for help getting across the stream.
“Hellooo Mr. Frog!” called the scorpion across the water, “Would you be so kind as to give me a ride on your back across the river?”
“Well now, Mr. Scorpion! How do I know that if I try to help you, you wont try to kill me?” asked the frog hesitantly.
“Because,” the scorpion replied, “If I try to kill you, then I would die too, for you see I cannot swim!”
Now this seemed to make sense to the frog. But he asked. “What about when I get close to the bank? You could still try to kill me and get back to the shore!”
“This is true,” agreed the scorpion, “But then I wouldn’t be able to get to the other side of the river!”
“Alright then...how do I know you wont just wait till we get to the other side and THEN kill me?” said the frog.
“Ahh...,” crooned the scorpion, “Because you see, once you’ve taken me to the other side of this river, I will be so grateful for your help, that it would hardly be fair to reward you with death, now would it?!”
So the frog agreed to take the scorpion across the river. He swam over to the bank and settled himself near the mud to pick up his passenger. The scorpion crawled onto the frog’s back, his sharp claws prickling into the frog’s soft hide, and the frog slid into the river. The muddy water swirled around them, but the frog stayed near the surface so the scorpion would not drown. He kicked strongly through the first half of the stream, his flippers paddling wildly against the current.
Halfway across the river, the frog suddenly felt a sharp sting in his back and, out of the corner of his eye, saw the scorpion remove his stinger from the frog’s back. A deadening numbness began to creep into his limbs.
“You fool!” croaked the frog, “Now we shall both die! Why on earth did you do that?”
The scorpion shrugged, and did a little jig on the drownings frog’s back.
“I could not help myself. It is my nature.”
Then they both sank into the muddy waters of the swiftly flowing river.
I’ve had to reference that particular story many times in recent weeks.
I swear he has the hots for Pelosi. No other explanation makes sense.
Ya’ll don’t understand. This is a ploy. Lot of Pubs are making noises about bipartisanship. It makes them look like the good guys and the Dims look like the bad guys.
They’re all on TV saying that they’re all ready to join the Dims in true bipartisan fashion, where they work together to create policies with input from both sides, etc., etc.
Naturally, the Obamunists and their Congressional toadies will continue to operate behind closed doors, presenting fait acompli legislative agendas with no bipartisainship whatsoever. In fact, the Pubs are counting on it. The Pubs have the luxury of talking the talk, but not having to walk the walk, knowing hell will freeze over before the Obamunists and their allies agree to share governance. Fortunately for the Pubs, November 2010 will be here well before winter arrives in Hades.
Hey! Newt! go home and shut up.
No health care bill of ANY type.
You are wrong. Newt is simply a RINO type republican. I suppose his sitting with a dimwit and promoting global warming was a “ploy” also. If it was it didn’t work.
The RINO list ...
http://republicanwhip.house.gov/newsroom/2009/04/national-council-for-a-new-america-formed.html
Our National Panel of Experts:
Governor Haley Barbour
Governor Jeb Bush
Governor Bobby Jindal
Senator John McCain
Governor Mitt Romney
(snip)
Sincerely,
John Boehner, Eric Cantor, Mike Pence, Cathy McMorris Rodgers, John Carter, Pete Sessions, David Dreier, Kevin McCarthy, Roy Blunt
Mitch McConnell, Jon Kyl, Lamar Alexander, John Ensign, John Cornyn, John Thune, Kay Bailey Hutchison
//
Gingrich Joins Cantor’s Effort To Remake GOP
The republicans already did offer a simple healthcare reform of tort reform and interstate competition, months ago. The dims wouldn’t even look at it. The msm/dims acts like that all the republicans have done is say no, the already offered their simple version, now, if you mean they should re-introduce it, then sure.
DC needs an enema! Start with Newt and McCain.
Listen up, republicans! He’s an open border, amnesty pushing RINO! Don’t fall for his ‘compassion’, he wants amnesty.
http://towncriernews.blogspot.com/search?q=Newt+Gingrich%2C+Conservative%3F+NOT+on+immigration!+
Friday, February 09, 2007
Newt Gingrich, Conservative? NOT on immigration!
Some wise man said, “The only indicator of future behavior is past behavior”.
There is lots of hype lately from the K St Crowd, that Gingrich helped found, to push him for president as the only “conservative” in the race. Newt has his finger in the wind, and is finding that Americans want immigration controlled, so now he’s suddenly on “our side”. Don’t believe it!
Let me remind you of a few FACTS.
In his much touted ‘Contract with America’....NOT one word about immigration. In fact only recently has Newt even talked about immigration enforcement. In the letter below, he joins other open border lobbyists proclaiming Bush’s amnesty is the ‘only way to go’.
Newt’s voting record on immigration....pretty bad! Per Numbers USA and others: “ Leans toward higher immigration, population growth, foreign labor. I can find nothing, in all the years that Gingrich was in office where he ever introduced or worked for legislation that would control our borders.
His close and long lasting association with Grover Norquist (open border White house policy maker), Jack Abramoff, Ralph Reed should cause concern.
I won’t even get into all of Newts money and corruption scandals over these many years or the fact that Newt never met a NAFTA/CAFTA type trade agreement he didn’t love.
Conservatives Join Together to Support Immigration and Immigration Reform
Arlington, VA – The following “Conservative Statement of Principles on Immigration” appeared today in the Wall Street Journal. If you have any questions regarding the statement please contact Tamar Jacoby, Manhattan Institute, at (973) 744-6117 or Stuart Anderson, National Foundation for American Policy, at (703) 351-5042.
The Wall Street Journal
February 6, 2004
Welcome to America
Fifteen authors offer this “Conservative Statement of Principles on Immigration”:
[snips]
America is a nation of immigrants. Except for Native American Indians, everyone in this country came to America or is here due to the good fortune that a parent, grandparent, or other relation came before them. Keeping a door open to those with the “will and heart to get here” is vital to our economy, our culture, our role in the world, and our historic tradition as a land of freedom and opportunity.
Conservatives oppose illegal immigration. We believe there is a right way and a wrong way to immigrate to the U.S. However, as conservatives we believe that our laws must reflect reality and common sense, be fiscally responsible, and avoid the loss of innocent life. Our current immigration laws do not pass this test.
Between 1990 and 2000, the U.S. increased the number of Border Patrol Agents from 3,600 to 10,000. During that same period illegal immigration rose by 5.5 million. Moreover, over the past eight years, more than 2,000 men, women, and children have died attempting to cross into America and seek the opportunity to work and achieve a better life. The status quo is unacceptable and clinging to the status quo — or tougher versions of it — is neither conservative nor principled. It has become clear that the only viable approach to reform is combining enforcement with additional legal avenues for those who wish to work in our economy, while also addressing the situation of those already here in the U.S.
President Bush has proposed a new legal path to work in the U.S. through a temporary worker program that will match willing workers with willing employers. We applaud the president and believe his approach holds great promise to reduce illegal immigration and establish a humane, orderly, and economically sensible approach to migration that will aid homeland security and free up border-security assets to focus on genuine threats. The president has shown courage by calling on Congress to place reality over rhetoric and recognize that those already working here outside the law are unlikely to leave. Congress can fulfill its role by establishing sufficient increases in legal immigration and paths to permanent residence to enable more workers to stay, assimilate, and become part of America.
Immigrants are crucial to our competitiveness and future labor and economic growth, as well as our military strength. Our country’s welcoming attitude to immigrants will permit the U.S. to grow and prosper, as the populations of many other nations stagnate and decline.
Co-authored by Stuart Anderson, Jeff Bell, Linda Chavez, Larry Cirignano, Cesar V. Conda, Francis Fukuyama, Richard Gilder, Newt Gingrich, Ed Goeas, Tamar Jacoby, Jack Kemp, Steve Moore, Grover Norquist, Richard W. Rahn and Malcolm Wallop.
SIGNATORES: (Names you need to know, they are the enemy!)
Stuart Anderson
Executive Director
National Foundation for American Policy
Jeff Bell
Principal
Capital City Partners
Linda Chavez
President
Center for Equal Opportunity
Larry Cirignano
President
Catholic Alliance/CatholicVote.org
Cesar V. Conda
Former Assistant for Domestic Policy to Vice President Cheney and
Board Member of Empower America
Francis Fukuyama
Dean of Faculty
The Paul H. Nitze School of Advanced International Studies
Richard Gilder
Gilder Gagnon Howe & Co. LLC
Hon. Newt Gingrich
Former Speaker of the House of Representatives
Ed Goeas
President and Chief Executive Officer
The Tarrance Group
Tamar Jacoby
Senior Fellow
The Manhattan Institute
Hon. Jack Kemp
1996 Republican Vice Presidential nominee, former Representative from New York, and Co-director of Empower America
Steve Moore
Senior Fellow
Cato Institute
Grover Norquist
President
Americans for Tax Reform
Richard W. Rahn
Senior Fellow
Discovery Institute
Hon. Malcolm Wallop
Former U.S. Senator from Wyoming and Chairman of Frontiers of Freedom
About the National Foundation for American Policy (Newt’s group!)
Started in 2003, the National Foundation for American Policy (NFAP) is a non-profit, non-partisan organization dedicated to public policy research on trade, immigration, and other issues of national importance. Its Advisory Board members include Columbia University economist Jagdish Bhagwati, Ohio University economist Richard Vedder, Rep. Guy Vander Jagt (ret.), Cesar Conda, until recently Vice President Dick Cheney’s chief domestic policy adviser, and other prominent individuals.
These are the people who would make policy in a Newt Gingrich administration!
And it won’t be policy you approve of! Please remember Cesar Conda, Grover Norquist, Steven Moore are responsible for destroying immigration reform in 1996 as well as Prop. 187 in California.
ALl the guys you both mentioned are and have been a huge part of the problem, of why the GOP so often bears scant resemblance to a conservative party.
An enema, perhaps. If that doesn’t work, a flame-thrower
Thanks very much for the links/information. Repackaged STATISTS BUMP!
Is Gingrich being blackmailed? What else could explain this? Other than mental illness?
Walsh: Maybe Newt should get his head out of his ass.
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.