"*Anyone who covered Gingrich in the 1990s knew he held Reagan in high regard* " Major Garrett
On Thu, Jan 26, 2012 at 6:47 PM, Keith In Tampa <[email protected]>wrote: > Dole vs. Gingrich: The GOP Empire Strikes Back > > <http://cdn-media.nationaljournal.com/?controllerName=image&action=get&id=14716> > AP Photo/Matt Rourke > > Republican presidential candidate, former House Speaker Newt Gingrich > speaks at the University of North Florida, Thursday, Jan. 26, 2012, in > Jacksonville, Fla. > The Republican establishment mobilizes to prevent the nomination of Newt. > > <http://www.nationaljournal.com/2012-presidential-campaign/dole-vs-gingrich-the-gop-empire-strikes-back-20120126#><http://www.nationaljournal.com/2012-presidential-campaign/dole-vs-gingrich-the-gop-empire-strikes-back-20120126#><http://www.nationaljournal.com/2012-presidential-campaign/dole-vs-gingrich-the-gop-empire-strikes-back-20120126#><http://www.nationaljournal.com/2012-presidential-campaign/dole-vs-gingrich-the-gop-empire-strikes-back-20120126?print=true><http://www.nationaljournal.com/2012-presidential-campaign/dole-vs-gingrich-the-gop-empire-strikes-back-20120126#> > > By Major Garrett <http://www.nationaljournal.com/reporters/bio/40> > Updated: January 26, 2012 | 6:29 p.m. > January 26, 2012 | 4:52 p.m. > > After arriving in Florida like a rolling ball of butcher knives, former > House Speaker Newt Gingrich is looking less edgy and more flabby by the > hour. The last four polls in Florida now show Mitt Romney back ahead (the > previous four had Gingrich up). > > That's at least in part because Republicans-–some conservative, some > semiconservative, and some conveniently conservative–-are attacking > Gingrich as a walking, talking party menace; a flu-like contagion who will > lose the presidency and contaminate down-ballot Republicans with erratic > extremism. > > While voters in South Carolina found Gingrich’s condemnation of the news > media and braggadocio about “big ideas” infectious, an increasing number of > Republicans now describe Gingrich as something akin to political plague. > > ”If Gingrich is the nominee, it will have an adverse impact on Republican > candidates running for county, state, and federal offices,” said Bob Dole, > the GOP’s 1996 nominee and former Senate majority leader. Dole released a > letter denouncing Gingrich on Thursday that Romney’s campaign quickly > distributed. “Hardly anyone who served with Newt in Congress has endorsed > him, and that fact speaks for itself. He was a one-man band who rarely took > advice. It was his way or the highway.” > > Former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay of Texas, who served as the No. 3 > Republican in the House when Gingrich was speaker, told Houston TV station > KTRH that Gingrich was “not really a conservative.” Conservative > commentator Ann Coulter has said that a Gingrich nomination would guarantee > President Obama’s reelection. Peter Wehner, a former Reagan aide, calls > Gingrich "intemperate and erratic." > > Dole remains an important figure in the party, although his attachment to > it has waned in recent years and he has no links to the tea party-inspired > segment of the party responsible for propelling Republicans to a House > majority and Senate gains in 2010. Dole’s message, however, is not unlike > the warnings that GOP veterans issued in 2010 when tea party activists > nominated Sharron Angle in Nevada and Christine O’Donnell in > Delaware–-hard-line conservatives who turned jump-ball Senate races into > slam-dunk Democratic victories. > > Dole and Gingrich have a history, and it bears a quick summary. When Dole > was a member of the Senate Finance Committee and urged then-President > Reagan to raise taxes to cope with rising budget deficits, Gingrich > memorably branded him a “tax collector for the welfare state.” > > When Dole challenged President Clinton in 1996, Gingrich negotiated the > deal with Clinton over welfare reform-–removing a potent issue of contrast > from Dole's campaign quiver. Dole told me later that when he heard welfare > reform would be signed before his nominating convention, he knew his > campaign had no chance. > > It probably didn’t anyway, but Dole viewed Gingrich’s decision to get > welfare reform signed into law–-allowing Clinton to campaign on it as he > did in his convention renomination speech–-as a political and personal > affront. Dole also knew he would face an onslaught of Clinton ads linking > him to the unpopular Gingrich. He did. Vice President Al Gore put a cap on > this at his convention speech, when he declared “Americans will reject this > Dole-Gingrich approach and all this déjà voodoo.” > > In that summer of 1996, Gingrich was terrified that Republicans would lose > their majority-–in part because of two government shutdowns that Gingrich > engineered in pursuit of a balanced budget (which was, it bears saying, > eventually achieved). In that atmosphere of panic, Gingrich pointedly > advised swing-district Republicans to leave conservatism aside and do > whatever it took to hold their seats. > > “For the marginal members, being speaker of the House, I’d say to them: > Talk to your pollsters, do what gets you reelected, and call home > afterward,” Gingrich told *The New York Times* editorial board. > > Dole and other Republicans are now telling GOP primary voters to avoid > what Gingrich was forced to advise when he led the party as speaker–-a mad > race toward political expediency created by an agenda that had grown > unpopular and threatening to the party’s long-term health. > > This is not the only line of attack Gingrich has had to confront. Now > brought into question is Gingrich’s fidelity to Reagan. There are several > print and video examples of Gingrich trafficking in allegedly anti-Reagan > apostasy. Some are contrived. For instance, a 1988 clip of Gingrich > predicting that then-Vice President George H. W. Bush would lose if he ran > like Reagan was actually advice for Bush to develop an authentic > conservative platform of his own and distinguish himself as a new leader > for a new time. In fact, Gingrich in that clip-–circulated by the Romney > campaign to suggest Gingrich was abandoning Reaganism–-specifically praises > Bush for his “no new taxes” pledge. He made that pledge while campaigning > for the New Hampshire primary–-in which he defeated Dole. > > Former State Department official Elliott Abrams wrote in *National > Review*this week that during the Reagan administration, Gingrich "often spewed > insulting rhetoric at Reagan, his top aides, and his policies to defeat > Communism." But anyone who covered Gingrich in the 1990s knew he held > Reagan in high regard and developed much of his Contract With America > agenda along the lines of what he considered Reagan’s unfinished domestic > agenda, which could be carried out only with a GOP-led House and Senate. > And any student of history knows it was not uncommon during Reagan’s > presidency for Hill Republicans to question the day-to-day tactics and > strategy of the Reagan White House. Criticism was common and sometimes done > as an act of sell-preservation (Reagan had severe popularity ups and downs). > > And Gingrich spurned the George H.W. Bush White House and John Sununu > (Bush the elder's chief of staff, who is now an aggressive Romney promoter) > by refusing to cooperate in raising taxes as part of the 1990 bipartisan > budget compromise. Gingrich savaged Bush’s decision to increase taxes and > used his position as party whip –- chief vote-counter -– to defeat the > first version of the deal. > > That decision paid significant political dividends for House Republicans > who followed Gingrich – because they maintained unblemished purity on the > tax issue. As a matter of governing, however, it forced the Bush White > House to negotiate a budget deal with more taxes and fewer spending cuts > because Bush had to seek Democratic votes to pass it. To the degree this > actual history is debated and dissected in Florida or any subsequent > primary state, GOP voters can decide for themselves which approach is more > “conservative.” > > As ever in politics, there is a lot of history here. Some of it is deeply > personal. Some of it is philosophical. Some of it is tactical. All of it is > about how to position and unite the party as the campaign against Obama > comes into focus. > > While defined broadly as the establishment versus the insurgents, the > uprising against Gingrich isn’t really that monochromatic. Gingrich is a > Washington figure through-and-through. Romney is backed by Republicans of > established political success in Washington, but is not a Washington figure > at all. > > While this is advertised as a fight over conservatism, it’s really a fight > over winning or what the party decides winning is about or what winning is > meant to pursue. Gingrich wants to win to bring about “radical change.” > Romney and the new wave of party critics contend the only thing radical > about a 2012 campaign with Gingrich as nominee would be the radical loss of > political clout in Congress and state legislatures across the land, along > with the White House itself. > > So, in essence, Gingrich is right about something. This is all about > winning the future. > > *Want to stay ahead of the curve? Sign up for National Journal’s AM & PM > Must Reads <http://www.nationaljournal.com/newsletters>. News and > analysis to ensure you don’t miss a thing.* > <http://www.nationaljournal.com/2012-presidential-campaign/dole-vs-gingrich-the-gop-empire-strikes-back-20120126#><http://www.nationaljournal.com/2012-presidential-campaign/dole-vs-gingrich-the-gop-empire-strikes-back-20120126#> > -- Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more.
