Jan 26 2012
Revenge Of The GOP Sithe
Yes, I deliberately mangled the Star Wars analogy. I know it is hard to detect when I deliberately do that versus my penchant for typos and dyslexic writing. My apologies – but I love strategery
Today we see another lame effort by the GOP establishment to take out Newt – by calling on the Ghost of GOP Past: Ronald Wilson Reagan.
Unmentioned by Gingrich then, or in any of the 2,414 debates during this campaign, was his 1985 criticism of President Reagan’s historic meeting with Mikhail Gorbachev as “the most dangerous summit for the West since Adolf Hitler met with (British Prime Minister) Chamberlain at Munich in 1938.”
I’m unimpressed. A young and cautious Gingrinch was schooled on politically bold moves by one of the masters of using his beliefs to guide his path. Similar to the successful behavior of George W Bush, who won his goals and the support of the people by sticking to principles, not saying one thing and doing another.
But why cry foul now because Newt did not always agree with Reagan back then? Is this piety to the image of a man of the people who rose to the Presidency going to impress anyone but the slavish Reagan Groupies (think Hannity here, who wants to be like Reagan but is not even close)?
Does the GOP establishment think Reagan was the reason they rode road to victory in 2010? Talk about your misfire.
I will say it again – this year’s key voters are the same Tea Party insurgents who swept away the old-tired guard in 2010. They hitched their cart to the small-government GOP and are taking the Republican Party by storm. They are going to change the GOP party through the age old art of democracy. Because they are going to change DC.
The other GOP establishment attack strategy has been to (1) claim Newt is too volatile, too bold and (2) Newt is impure. In fact the Reagan swipes are part of the “Newt is impure, too imperfect” gambit.
Let me take the 2nd issue first. The 2010 insurgent voters sees all of DC as dirty and conniving. No one is going to win by trying to convince these voters they are the least stained, or the others are more stained. Romney has RomneyCare, Bain Capitol and his liberal, big government dark side. Newt has no claim to fidelity and honor at home. As the WSJ noted previously, the best way to look at this field is:
As for the current GOP field, it’s like confronting a terminal diagnosis. There may be an apparent range of treatments: conventional (Romney), experimental (Gingrich), homeopathic (Paul) or prayerful (Santorum). But none will avail you in the end. Just try to exit laughing.
We are swimming in imperfections, so this impure and imperfect attack mode is a none starter.
So what will work? Well generalities won’t because the 2010 insurgent voter is not stupid nor naive. Vague and empty phrases only repel this upper middle class, successful voter (once know as the silent majority). They (or we) see things differently. We don’t want cautious or conventional (Romney). We want action. And that answers why the first kind of attack is failing.
We don’t want prayers or new age promises of instant success (Santorum and Paul). We want bold experimentation with an eye to shrink government to its minimum size (note well I did not say optimum size). Now that has some serious appeal!
I noted yesterday that I was going to explain why Romney and Bain are not the paragons of the free market so many Romney supporters want to claim. Bain is, and was, part vulture capitalism. Newt’s documentary on the wreckage left by Romney and Bain after pulling millions of dollars out of corporate carcasses is spot on in this regard. He did not do it universally, but he did do it a lot. Too much.
The defense has been “it is legal and he paid his taxes”. Well let me introduce you to a legendary business man who made is wealth legally and paid his taxes. He too was a big fan of destructive capitalism:
Yes folks, it is the fictional character Ebenezer Scrooge. The worst of the corporate raiders to be known by so many around the world. He has his real life contemporaries like robber barons and sweat shop owners. He is an example of what no business owner or manager should ever want to be associated with.
Now, if any of you Romney backers are thinking I am comparing Romney and Bain to Scrooge chill down. My only point here is you can be a legal, tax paying businessman and rightfully despised. Sadly for Romney, his actions at Bain allow a connection to this well known image of businessmen who forget or ignore the human factor when chasing profits.
In Dickens’ A Christmas Carol there was the counter example to Scrooge, the image of an admirable and loved businessman. This is embodied in the character of Mr. Fezziwig:
Fezziwig is one of the few people to whom Scrooge is thankful, for he says, “He has the power to render us happy or unhappy; to make our service light or burdensome; a pleasure or a toil…The happiness he gives, is quite as great as if it cost a fortune.” Scrooge is reminded how much he once appreciated Fezziwig. Since Fezziwig is the elder Scrooge’s opposite in many ways — in kindness, generosity, affection for his employees, relationship with family, and apparent happiness — Scrooge is thus confronted with the fact that his own choices have diverged greatly from those of someone he admires.
Now I would say, on the home front, Romney is closer to Fezziwig. But on the corporate front he is definitely tilted to the Scrooge side of the spectrum. And when we look to someone to dismantle Big Government, we are not looking for someone who takes an ax to the deal. There are still lives, careers and families to deal with.
So is there a Fezziwig in the race? Not any more. Herman Cain was playing that role (which is why he was succeeding so well). But there are Fezziwig like examples out there – and they exist in small businesses (not Big Government).
The best example I can come up with I think people could connect with is a man named Chef Robert Irvine and his uplifting show Restaurant Impossible.
I love this show because it is admirable on so many levels. Here is a successful man answering the calls of desperate small businesses (many family owned and run). Chef Irvine comes in with 2 days and $10,000 and literally saves people from ruin and despair. He does not walk away with millions. He does, however, try to save every job. He gives secrets, talents and skills he has learned away to the needy.
He teaches the people how to fish (or run a restaurant), he does not hand out fish.
This show is an example of what 2010 voters cherish and admire – and why Romney will never connect. He is not this kind of corporate re-builder. These people work their butts off to help others. And many of these people are below rock bottom. Savior versus profiteer.
Does Irvin and his folks get some financial return? Of course. But his goal is to salvage the company at all costs, not savage it for all potential profits.
2010 voters instinctively know the difference. They know Big Government is incapable of such actions (though the big government types strive to be Robin Hood, while they decide who is ‘worthy’). They know the difference between a Romney and an Irvine (or the Fezziwig verses Scrooge class).
Is Newt imperfect and radical? Yes. Is that bad? Not to a 2010 insurgent voter.
Is Newt an impure conservative? Yes. Is that bad? Not to a 2010 insurgent voter.
Is Newt pissing off the GOP establishment? Yes. Is that the primary goal of the 2010 insurgent voter?
You Betcha!
Nancy Reagan: Ronnie Turned the Torch Over to Newt Gingrich (Video)
http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2012/01/nancy-reagan-ronnie-turned-the-torch-over-to-newt-gingrich-video/
I guess that settles that debate. Romney owes Newt an apology.
Newt Beats Mitt on Energy
Gingrich has revolutionary ideas, while Mitt enlists Bush-era bureaucrats.
http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/289260/newt-beats-mitt-energy-robert-zubrin
The polls over the past day or two definately do show a recent surge back into Mitt’s camp. However, it also indicates just how fluid the polls are and how they can shift in the wind from day to day. The establishment attack to take Gingrich down on Mitt’s behalf is at full blown speed right now. It’s been effective. I guess we will see if Gingrich finds a way to past them.
…if Gingrich finds a way to get past them. (oops).
Frogg1
I watched the minute plus clip of Nancy Reagan in what was obvious her closing remarks. The banner said “Goldwater Institute,” at the podium where she was speaking. It seemed as if she were receiving an award or honor, on behalf of her husband. Gingrich’s name was brought up more in a timeline sequence than a ringing endorsement of him. In fact she tripped over his name as she was looking at Gingrich, sitting with now ex-wife Marianne, as if Nancy really didn’t know him or his name well.
In the sequence of turning torches over to people she talked about Goldwater turning the Torch over to Ronnie, and Ronnie turning the torch over to the Speaker Gingrich and the Republican Congress, in carrying the ignited spark of the conservative movement forward. Speaker Gingrich and the Republican Congress was a packaged phrase. She did no stand-alone linkage of Reagan and Newt. Newt being the Speaker, simply had his name recognized as the leader of the Congress being recognized by her, just as Boehner’s name identifies and headlines the current House.
Anyway, this is hardly a sign that Reagan thought any more of Gingrich than the fact he was Speaker of the congress, the 104th Congress, who was responsible for implementing many of Reagan’s policies.
Ironically, the linking of Goldwater to Newt is somewhat obtuse, as he previously supported Rockefellew over Goldwater…or, more fitting, Newt Gingrich was formerly a Rockefellew Republican.
Romney advisor says no Obamacare repeal.
http://www.redstate.com/erick/2012/01/25/romney-advisor-no-obamacare-repeal/
This is my problem with Mitt. You never can say for sure where he stands with his “nuanced” statements on a day to day basis. He has no core values. He says whatever he thinks his audience wants hear at the moment.
I have absolutely no faith that he will repeal Obamacare (in fact, I am fairly certain he will not). Does the GOP think the angry voters of 2010 went away or that they suddenly don’t care anymore? They are in for a rude awakening…
Frogg1
“The establishment attack to take Gingrich down on Mitt’s behalf is at full blown speed right now.”
Actually, the establishment and more recently more conservatives have been opening up on the Newt they knew and did not like, during his reign as Speaker. I heard something like 88% of the GOP members in Congress were against him. And, he had that favorability rating of only 14%.
In the meantime, Newt is having liberal groups shilling for him in FL.
Why are liberals trying to prop Newt up?
Jan, with all due respect:
“Romney worked with the liberal majority on this health care measure,”
Romney didn’t WORK with the liberal majority, he is the one that PROPOSED and INTRODUCED the whole thing. then the libs added all the additional crap to it to further sink Massachusetts economy and destroy their health care system. Then he SENT his advisors to Washington to give Obama all the details of the program and how to get it passed for the country. At least let’s try to keep the truthful versions of the stories.
Just the Facts
Newt is a conservative
Romney is a liberal-moderate
now with that in mind, who would Obama prefer to run against?
If he runs against a repub-lib the Conservatives will not turn out very strongly and Obama should get all the Dims against a low turn out Repub.
If he runs against a strong Repub Conservative, the conservative will get all the tea party votes and basically all Repubs. a much stronger turnout such as the 2010 vote. Obama will be blown out.
So, why would libs be shilling for the strong conservative?
Chuck Norris, now there’s a good one! I hadn’t thought of him!
Of course there’s a scandal that would come up with him, too.
Chuck Norris visited the Virgin Islands once.
Now they’re just known as “The Islands.”
$2.00 a gallon tax
VAT tax
No repeal of Obamacare.
If these things are true Romney, is in deep trouble down the road, heck now!
After pondering this whole mess the entire day, until now, I decided, not that anybody cares:
“I will not support Romney under any circumstance in the primary”.
Yes, I will vote for him against Obama, if he wins the nomination the dirty way, but I am done with him and the whole repubic establishment.
So it is either Newt, or Santorum.
Furthermore, I deeply hate the establishment for the way they try to destroy Newt, with warts and divorces and the entire shebang.
After the Bush disaster, they had to do the right thing, but they did not do it.
My personal opinion is that the GOP is dead. We are just witnessing the last years of it.
OK AJ………………………………………………………WELL DONE!
WWS, YOU ARE VERY FUNNY!
Rush Limbaugh:
Now, Jeff Lord worked in the Reagan White House.
He’s posted that Elliott Abrams never said a word to him at the time about Newt, not one. And Jeff says, “Suffice to say the political office of the Reagan White House made it our job to defend Reagan from Republican members of Congress. I never heard any criticism of Newt, either, firsthand from Elliott or secondhand from anybody else,” and then he posts his take on all it is at American Spectator.
http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2012/01/26/coordinated_avalanche_against_newt_doesn_t_match_my_memory_of_reagan_years
Jan, not only did Nancy Reagan mention Newt by name; but, Michael Reagan has also endorsed Newt and came to his defense against these attacks by Mitt. Jeff Lord, who’s job it was to defend Reagan against Repubs in Congress, has also come to Newt’s defense. I think the case is pretty much closed.
As far as liberal groups attacking Mitt. They aren’t doing it on Gingrich’s behalf…they are doing it on Obama’s behalf. They see Romney as the frontrunner, view him to have the advantage in Florida, and see him as the GOP establishment candidate. They are simply trying to bloody him up before his ‘perceived’ victory to make Obama’s job easier. If Newt were perceived by them to be the frontrunner….the attacks would be on Newt. Liberal groups know that the GOP establishment candidate is likely to win (it has been the party history).
Michael Reagan defends Newt Gingrich as a Reagan conservative
http://www.therightscoop.com/michael-reagan-defends-newt-gingrich-as-a-reagan-conservative/
Just like in December, the rise of Newt has caused panic in Republican circles.
http://legalinsurrection.com/2012/01/drudge-versus-history/
and,
Shock, video of Newt bashing Reagan misleadingly edited
http://legalinsurrection.com/2012/01/shock-video-of-newt-bashing-reagan-misleadingly-edited/
I’m beginning to see this as true:
“The only way Mitt Romney wins a nomination is by destroying others. It was true in 2008, and it’s true in 2012. He is incapable of bringing people together with positive inspiration.” — William Jocobson, Legal Insurrection Blog-
http://legalinsurrection.com/2012/01/pre-debate-irreparable-split/
Just watched Ed Rollins (Assistant to President for Political Affairs) and Headed the Reagan re-election campaign state that Newt was one of the very few people that Reagan looked to to accomplish his conservative agenda. He pointed out that Romney was an independent at that time.
One point of clarification. Nancy Reagan said Goldwater passed the torch to Reagan and Reagan passed the torch to Newt. She did not say to ‘speaker’ Gingrich and other Republicans. Anyone that doesn’t believe that should re-watch the video.
Rush Limbaugh’s show today was basically about the hours and hours of speeches that Newt made in the House supporting Reagan. I’m sure Rush is correct on that because that’s how I remember it also.
Mark Levin, no defender of Gingrich, also went on a rant about this on his radio show today:
““Newt Gingrich, if he does nothing else, did more for the conservative movement and to stop the liberal Democrats in the House of Representatives than virtually everybody today who is criticizing him!”
http://www.therightscoop.com/mark-levin-newt-did-more-for-the-conservative-movement-than-virtually-all-of-his-critics-today/
OK Redteam, I have to be careful as I’m on double secret probation on this site, so I’ll politelly ask you to stop the complete BS.
“Then he SENT his advisors to Washington to give Obama all the details of the program and how to get it passed for the country. At least let’s try to keep the truthful versions of the stories.”
Excuse me while I clean up the barf off my keyboard. A couple of Romney’s advisors were consulted by the Obama administration and the Dems in Congress. Got it! He has to be able to explain that. Got it! But saying that he SENT people to Washington to advise Obvama is a bunch of crap. Excuse me for speaking my mind. If AJ decides to ban me for sinking into the gutter so be it. What we have here is a full blown case of RDS. And don’t lecture us on “truthful versions of stories” when you’re out there in some alternate reality.
AJ:
“But why cry foul now because Newt did not always agree with Reagan back then? ”
I’ll try to answer your question, but you may not want to hear the answer given your prism is Star Wars, Scrooge, old FeZziwig, and Chef Irvine. Hear it is, as simple as I can make it.
Newt’s stump line:”… a Massechusett’s moderate or a Reagan conservative…” etc., etc., etc.
The core of the persona Newt presents is that he has the mantle of Reagan. So everytime it can be pointed out that Newt obstructed Reagan, bad mouthed Reagan, undercut Reagan, denounced Reagan, declared the era of Reagan is over, etc. that is a legitimate exposition to point out that Newt say anything or will sit on the couch with anybody to get what he wants.
Now if you want to say that simply makes him a politician great. Go for it. But please knock off the “pious baloney,” to quote a former Speaker of the House.