Rush Limbaugh from 2008 in regards to Newt’s book.
“I don’t know this. It’s just a wild guess, but based on this comment, “The Reagan era is over. The George W. Bush era is over. We’re at a point in time we’re about to start redefining, as a number of people have started talking…” Yes, they are. Every one of these Republicans is starting to talk about redefining the party, and this has been going on since the early days of this, not just now.
If you recall, all during last year, I told you this was my big concern: that Reaganism and conservatism were going to be redefined so as to fit the mold of whoever these guys on our primary roster are.
One of the things that Newt said is “redefine the nature of the Republican Party in response to what the country needs.” Something about that rubs me wrong. Something about that sort of grates on me. The Republican Party is supposed to sit out there and I guess (slurps) moisten its index finger, stick it in the air, find out what people want, and be that?
That’s not who we are! Now, it may be who populists are. In fact, it is exactly who populists are. Even if you have no intention of following through on what you plan to do as you promise all these wonderful things to your supporters, as a populist. But this is not what the Republican Party has been. It’s what the Democrat Party had been.
“Figure out what the country needs” and then do it? We know what the country needs already! That’s our ace-in-the-hole. One of the things Newt said in this interview was, “Far beyond just how do I subsidize your heating oil, how do I make it unnecessary for you to buy as much heating oil? And there are dramatic things we can do in that conversation.” Now, “How do I…?” He means a president, running a campaign, not him.“How do I subsidize your heating oil?” We Republicans are going to talk about subsidizing people’s heating oil now, and we’re going to call that conservatism?
If you want to talk about that, fine! If that’s what you want the Republican Party to be, then be that and go ahead and say that’s what you want, but don’t call it conservatism.
“There are dramatic things we can do in that conversation. I want to make it unnecessary for you to buy as much heating oil“? Now, conservation is great, folks. Conservation is great, but conservation does not equal growth.
To sit out there and say people need to buy less and less heating oil, okay. Buy natural gas furnace, or any number of things, but if this country has always been about: “You need heating oil? It’s going to be there. You need gasoline? It’s going to be there.“
The burden is not on you to conserve so that it’s always there! It’s economic. Capitalism is the greatest force for change in the world!
Mark Steyn has a brilliant piece today on this very subject. It’s how capitalism forces major innovation and change, not politicians, not Washington, not government. They don’t force any kind of change other than in primaries with perception and attitudes and make people think that they’re going to be better off, but it is capitalism that forces genuine change throughout culture and throughout society.
Newt could have just as easily said here that conservative principles don’t change, that the Reagan coalition is simply looking for leadership and that we need to bring more creative policy alternatives to the table than we have in the recent past.
But that’s not what he said. He said, “THE ERA OF REAGAN IS OVER. … It’s the end of the Reagan era.” It is not.
If the Reagan era is over, if the Reagan coalition is dead, what replaced it? Could somebody tell me? Precisely nothing has replaced it, and that’s why so many people are scratching their heads, why so many people are a little nervous, because there isn’t any real leadership out there that causes people and inspires people to get behind it and go rah-rah and make certain things happen.
I mean, is there a Gingrich coalition that has replaced the Reagan coalition? For that matter, what is the McCain coalition? If we’re going to have a new era, what is the McCain era? What is the Huckabee era? What is their winning coalition? They don’t have one.
You know, all this sounds like Third Way kind of talk, the triangulation of the Clinton years in the nineties. But I don’t know what the McCain era would be, and I don’t know what the Huckabee coalition is. They don’t have a coalition. They’re out trying to get votes of independents and Democrats. They’re pandering to moderates and independents.
Folks, I just want you to think about this: What happens if either of these two guys happen to win, attracting the votes of independents, moderates, the Jell-Os, and Democrats? Does that not equal the demise of the Republican Party? Do you think McCain’s out there actually trying to get Republican votes? Is Huckabee trying to get Republican votes? Romney is. Giuliani is. Fred Thompson certainly is. But if we have a nominee that is a nominee on the basis of moderate and independent and Democrat voters, then what happens to the Republican Party?”
http://abcnews.go.com/ThisWeek/story?id=4128020&page=1#.Tw3KmoEeW9x
TRANSCRIPT Newt Gingrich Talks with George
January 13, 2008
Look, I think there are dramatic changes we need in this country.
We produced a platform of the American people at American Solutions. And it’s at the back of our book “Real Change.” It’s also at Americansolutions.com. Every single item on the list has a majority of Democrats, majority of Republicans, majority of independents favoring.
The easiest one is making English the official language of government.
Look, I think the first two things the president and the Congress can do on the economy is cut spending. If you’ll notice, you have a primary in Michigan, a state which artificially had a recession, because its government is so bad, its taxes are so high, its unionized work rules are so destructive, that Michigan was in a recession when the rest of the country was growing.
Part of — real change focuses — a long section on Detroit.
The truth is, large bureaucracies are destructive. High taxes are destructive. The system we’ve built discourages any business from opening up in Detroit. The schools don’t deliver. They do deliver paychecks. They do take care of the union. But they don’t deliver for the kids. And this is at a time when if you’re an African- American male and you drop out of high school, you have a 73 percent chance of being unemployed and a 60 percent chance of going to jail.
So I think we need dramatically deeper and more fundamental change.
So — but let’s take things the American people agree on. The American people agree you ought to make it easier to build oil refineries in the United States if you want to bring down the price of oil.
The American people agree that you ought to set up prizes for major breakthroughs. And that would be very different than the system we’ve used since World War II.
The American people, in fact, agree that we ought to have tax credits for people who are willing to go to greater conservation for their homes. I mean, far beyond just how do I subsidize your heating oil, how do I make it unnecessary for you to buy as much heating oil?
The Congress and the president do have an opportunity to listen to the American people, who are saying that real change does matter, and the real change is what they want.
The way the McCain/Feingold law currently discriminates against the middle class, is it sets up a system by which, you know, if you’re the mayor of New York and you’re Bloomberg and you’re worth $11 billion, you can contemplate buying the presidency and get away with it. If you are a self-, you know, a multi-millionaire governor and you want to, you can buy a nomination.
And so, I just think there’s nothing unhealthy about the Republican Party having a serious discussion. We are at the end of the George W. Bush era. We are at the end of the Reagan era.
We’re at a point in time where we’re about to start redefining — as a number of people have started talking about, we’re starting to redefine the nature of the Republican Party in response to what the country needs.
"If you want to talk about that, fine! If that’s what you want the Republican Party to be, then be that and go ahead and say that’s what you want, but don’t call it conservatism."