Tag Archives: Newt Gingrich

What has happened to the Grand Old Party?

Republican_Party1

I miss Jacob Javits, Everett Dirksen, Nelson Rockefeller, Charles Percy, Mark Hatfield, Howard Baker and even Ronald Reagan.

I miss the old-guard Republicans who used to see their political opponents as “adversaries” and not “enemies.”

These are the guys who used to work with Lyndon Johnson, George McGovern, Ted Kennedy, Sam Rayburn and other Democrats to seek a way forward for the nation.

These days we hear talk of doing away with the “enemy.” It’s all over the air and in print coming out of the Republican National Convention, which concludes tonight in Cleveland.

Where did this “enemy” talk come from?

I cannot answer that with great precision, although I do remember a quote attributed to the former speaker of the House, Newton Leroy Gingrich, who led a GOP “revolution” back in 1994.

It was Newt who spoke to his minions of the need to characterize Democrats as “the enemy of normal Americans.”

Let that sink in for a moment.

There. Now let’s ponder whether the “enemy” characterization has worked well for the nation.

A New Hampshire delegate to the GOP convention has said Democratic candidate Hillary Rodham Clinton should be “shot for treason.”

Yes. Shot! The Secret Service is examining whether this fellow presents a clear and present danger to a leading American politician. Clinton hasn’t been charged with a crime, let along convicted of one. That doesn’t matter to this fellow.

Yes, we’ve gotten more than a bit testy these days.

To think that this once-great political party, where politicians used to take pride in their ability to work with the other side, has devolved to this point.

Is the other side innocent of this kind of division? No. They, too, have their share of loudmouthed demagogues. But in the halls of Congress, which is controlled by Republicans, we see the majority party using language that seeks to drive a wedge between men and women on both sides of the aisle.

It’s all coming to bear this week in Cleveland and the Grand Old Party sends its nominee off to campaign against Hillary Clinton and the Democrats.

I’m usually not one to harken back to the old days. I wouldn’t want to be a teenager ever again.

In this instance, though, I am left to wish for a return — in the words of another grand old-school Republican, George H.W. Bush — to a “kinder, gentler” time.

Pence announcement: not by the book

mike-pence

Donald J. Trump continues to toss aside political tradition as he awaits his nomination as the Republican Party’s presidential candidate.

His selection of Indiana Gov. Mike Pence to run with him as the VP nominee offers a glowing example of an unconventional selection process.

Trump went to Indiana to visit with Pence and his family.

He then apparently decided to select Pence.

He flew Pence to New York on his private plane to make an announcement, which was to occur Friday morning at 11 at Trump Tower.

Trump then “postponed” the announcement — during which he would “introduce” Pence to the political world — in the wake of the horrific terrorist attack in Nice, France. He would make that announcement the next day.

Then, at 11 a.m. Friday, Trump sent out a tweet announcing that — yep! — Pence is his guy. The tweet, therefore, did precisely what Trump said he was postponing out of deference to the horror in France.

Oh, and then it was reported that he didn’t inform New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie and former House Speaker Newt Gingrich — the two other finalists — that he had decided on Pence. Christie and Newt, thus, were left — to borrow a phrase — to twist in the wind.

It also has been reported that Trump wavered a bit once the word leaked that Pence would get the call, but that Trump didn’t want to upset members of his family who apparently talked him into selecting Pence.

Get ready, Republicans. You wanted unconventional when most of you voted for this guy.

Newt proposes going to war against Islam

the_crux_of_our_endless_war_on_terror

President George W. Bush stood firm and resolute in the days after 9/11 and declared — without equivocation — that America would not go to war “against Islam.”

Our enemy, he told a grief-stricken nation, are the religious perverts who acted in the name of a mainstream religion.

Then we went to war against terrorists.

President Barack Obama came into office eight years later and said the same thing. He has followed through on President Bush’s declaration. Yet those who condemn Barack Obama’s strategy choose to ignore the war policies enacted by his immediate predecessor in the White House.

So, what does a one-time congressional leader and former candidate for president of the United States want to do? He wants to go to war against Islam. Newt Gingrich said last night the nation needs to apply “tests” to Muslims to determine if they believe in Sharia law, which he said is incompatible with “western civilization.”

The former speaker of the House has given the radical Islamists a lead-pipe-cinch recruitment tool. He has just delivered to them all the evidence many of the terrorists need to justify their jihad against the United States and our many allies around the world.

Two presidents — one Republican and one Democrat — who’ve been up to their armpits in this on-going war against radical Islamic terrorists have laid down an important marker that Newt Gingrich has declared no longer matters.

Suffice to say, at least, that Newt no longer is in a position to turn his shrill rhetoric into public policy.

Thank goodness, at least, for that reality.

Newt calls for Muslim ‘test’

newt

Newt Gingrich must be making a last-ditch pitch to become Donald J. Trump’s running mate.

Or … he’s feeling frisky now that he appears to be out of the running to join the Republican presidential ticket led by the presumptive nominee.

Whatever the case, the former U.S. House speaker has gone ballistic — and flown off the rails — in the wake of the terrible attack yesterday in Nice, France, in which someone plowed his truck through crowds of people in an apparent terrorist attack.

Eighty-four people are dead. Yes, it is a horrible, despicable act. The group responsible for it must be punished with extreme prejudice.

What is Newt’s response? He wants to apply a “test” to every single Muslim living in the United States of America. If they pass the test, they’re welcome to stay. If they fail, out they go. Deported. Sent to their country of origin.

The basis for Newt’s test is whether these Muslims believe in Sharia law, which he said is “incompatible” with western civilization. Oh, and he wants to “monitor” mosques to see if they’re being used to recruit jihadists.

Holy moly, Mr. Speaker.

My third thought about Newt’s post-Nice rant is that he’s trying to show off his own anti-Muslim credentials to Trump.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/gingrich-calls-for-muslim-test-says-trump-veep-is-probably-pence/ar-BBumw4I?li=BBnb7Kz

A few questions come to mind.

One concerns the logistics involved. How do we identify every single Muslim currently in this country? How do we pay for this endeavor? How does the country enlist enough security agents to fan out across more than 3.6 million square miles of American real estate to search for these individuals?

How do we devise this test? How do we establish whether its results prove beyond a doubt that someone is a Sharia-believer?

Has the ex-speaker decided that U.S. citizens who also are Muslim also should be tested in this manner? If so, well, then we have another fairly significant issue to ponder: the U.S. Constitution. That silly ol’ First Amendment says something about religious freedom and guarantees every American the right to worship as they please without government interference.

Moreover, I recall President Bush saying right after the 9/11 attacks that we weren’t going to war against Islam, which his successor, President Obama, has reiterated. Our enemies are the radical Islamists who have perverted a religious faith for political gain.

Of course Americans ought to be outraged over what has happened in Nice. Someone said last night that this attack that occurred while France was celebrating Bastille Day appears to be the costliest attack in terms of lives lost ever committed by a single terrorist. French police shot the driver of the truck to death and then apparently discovered his vehicle contained other munitions, suggesting he was operating as part of an organization.

Is it the Islamic State? Or al-Qaeda? Or some other group?

French intelligence officials are pretty good at rooting out bad guys. And they’ll have plenty of help from U.S., British, German, Israeli and other international law enforcement agencies as they seek to combat this latest attack.

As for Newt Gingrich’s proposal to go after every living Muslim in the U.S. of A., let’s not allow fear and panic to overtake us.

VP picks don’t matter … really

here-are-the-top-vice-president-picks-for-donald-trump-and-hillary-clinton_1

Donald J. Trump is getting set to have the most important day of his presidential campaign.

He’s going to announce his selection as a vice-presidential running mate.

No need for a show of hands — if you get my drift. But does anyone out there in Blog World really think Trump’s selection is going to matter, that it’s going to sway anyone’s vote, that it’s going to be determinative of this election?

For that matter, do you think Hillary Rodham Clinton’s choice is going to matter, either?

The only way these picks might determine anything is if they select absolute dogs, losers, Fruit Loops. I don’t expect that to happen Friday or a week from Friday.

Recent political history is full of questionable VP picks. Richard Nixon selected Spiro Agnew in 1968; the Republicans won a squeaker that year and rolled to a historic landslide four years later. George H.W. Bush picked Dan Quayle in 1988 and then piled up a huge victory.

I guess you could make the case that John McCain’s hail-Mary selection of Sarah Palin in 2008 might have turned off some voters, but I believe McCain would have lost anyway.

One of the more interesting selections — to my way of thinking — was Lloyd Bentsen, the Texan who ran with presidential nominee Michael Dukakis in 1988. More than a few Democrats were grousing that year that Bentsen and Dukakis should have traded positions on the ticket.

But this year’s focus has been solely — and not entirely in a flattering way — focused on Republican Trump and Democrat Clinton.

These are two of the most polarizing figures ever to be nominated by the major parties. So, whoever they select will be relegated to the shadows.

I agree, though, that Trump’s selection is drawing the most attention, mostly because the pool of potential GOP stars is so shallow. The word is that he’s leaning toward former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, Indiana Gov. Mike Pence and New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie.

However, given Trump’s mercurial behavior, there’s a part of me that wonders if he’s going to stun us all with someone no one ever saw coming.

Sure, we’ll then chatter about it for a time.

Then it’ll be Trump being Trump … and the insults will fly.

So much for principle, yes, Mr. Speaker?

trade

I guess you could have predicted this switcheroo.

Former Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives Newt Gingrich has performed a 180-degree flip on free trade. He now agrees with the Republican presumptive presidential nominee Donald J. Trump.

Free trade is a bad thing, Trump says. It steals jobs from American workers and ships them out to places like China and Mexico, he says.

Gingrich, though, was one of the architects of the North American Free Trade Agreement, which opened the door wide to free trade among the United States, Canada and Mexico.

Then the party’s presumed nominee came calling with a possible vice-presidential selection in mind.

Now it’s the former speaker who says he agrees with Trump on trade.

This kind of switch isn’t new, of course. Politicians do it all the time.

My favorite switch involved one of my favorite Republicans, a man I admire very much. George H.W. Bush once was considered a tried-and-true pro-choice Republican on abortion. Then the party’s nominee tapped him on the shoulder in 1980 and said, in effect, “If you want to run on our ticket, you have to become a pro-life guy on abortion.”

Bush did and he joined Ronald Reagan on the GOP’s winning 1980 ticket.

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/07/newt-gingrich-trump-trade-vice-president-225035

Trump has accused U.S. political and business leaders of “stupidity” in allowing free trade to pilfer U.S. jobs. Does that include Gingrich?

I guess not.

It’s interesting nevertheless because Gingrich always has struck me as a politician dedicated to core principles and to partisan orthodoxy. Free trade is part of the Republican mantra, while Trump’s view of GOP trade policy has angered many within the party’s establishment mainstream.

Go figure.

Let’s be sure to check in with Gingrich if Trump picks someone else to run with him.

Mike Pence becomes new VP favorite

mike-pence

Mike Pence has stormed out of Indiana to become the latest possible selection for Donald J. Trump’s presidential ticket.

The Republican presumptive nominee is now “vetting” Pence, the two-term Indiana governor and former House member as a possible vice-presidential selection.

The chatter this morning is quite interesting. According to those in the know, Pence would bring Washington experience, executive government experience, good standing with the evangelical base of the GOP, and strong conservative political credentials … allegedly.

Pence would be a solid pick … for any other presidential nominee in the party.

But not this one, from where I sit.

I’m trying to imagine a Vice President Pence scolding a President Trump about his insistence that we toss out free-trade policies. I’m trying to conjure up the image of these two haggling in private over whether it really is wise to ban Muslims from entering the country solely because of their religious faith.

Would the GOP’s presidential nominee actually listen to anything his VP running mate — whoever he is — has to say about anything?

I believe Trump’s stated declaration that he’s his own man and that he intends to “go it alone” if need be is what likely might be scaring off potential running mates.

Sure, reports indicate Trump’s “team,” such as it is, is vetting New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie and former House Speaker Newt Gingrich for the No. 2 spot. Think about what either of those two gents bring to the ticket: Christie is wildly unpopular in his home state; meanwhile, Gingrich is lugging around his own “family values” baggage based on his three marriages and the affair he was having with a staffer while he was screaming for Bill Clinton’s impeachment based on an affair the then-president was having with a White House intern.

Now it’s Pence’s turn to be examined by the political punditry.

This is more fun than I ever imagined.

Hey, at least Gov. Pence looks good on TV.

‘Glass house’ suffers a lot of damage

Former US President Bill Clinton speaks during the 2011 Fiscal Summit by the Peter G. Peterson Foundation at the Mellon Auditorium in Washington, DC, May 25, 2011. AFP PHOTO / Saul LOEB (Photo credit should read SAUL LOEB/AFP/Getty Images)

An item showed up on my Facebook feed that I must share here.

It points out that three men who were involved with the impeachment of President Clinton have been themselves caught up in sex scandals.

All three were — or presumed to be — speakers of the U.S. House of Representatives.

Republicans Newt Gingrich, Bob Livingston and Dennis Hastert? Stand up and take a bow.

Clinton got impeached because he lied to a federal grand jury about a dalliance he was having with a White House intern. Members of the House were so incensed that they just had to impeach the president for “breaking the law.” The impeachment in reality, though, also was about sex.

The Senate saw through it during the trial and acquitted the president of any “high crimes and misdemeanors.”

Then the nation learned:

Speaker Newt Gingrich was fooling around with a congressional aide while he was married to another woman. He was doing this while excoriating the president for his own bad behavior.

Bob Livingston, who was supposed to become speaker after Gingrich quit, himself had to bow out because he, too, was having an extramarital affair.

Dennis Hastert, who became speaker after Livingston admitted to his own failings, paid hush money to keep quiet his own misdeeds involving teenage boys many years ago.

What’s that saying about those who reside in glass houses?

 

Hey, these guys got along, too!

newt

The politics of the moment has this way of inflicting a case of selective amnesia among politicians.

Take last night’s 12th — and possibly final — Republican Party presidential debate with Donald J. Trump, Rafael Edward Cruz, Marco Rubio and John Kasich as providing an example of that peculiar malady.

One of them (I can’t remember who) brought up President Reagan’s famous buddy-buddy relationship with House Speaker Tip O’Neill. The two men — one Republican, one Democrat — worked well together.

Sure they did. I honor them for that cooperation.

So did a couple of other well-known pols. Democratic President Bill Clinton and Republican House Speaker Newt Gingrich also managed to find common ground when the need arose. And it did, particularly as it regarded the need to balance the federal budget.

None of these current GOP candidates, though, mentions that political partnership.

We all know why that is the case, of course.

It’s because the president’s wife, Hillary Rodham Clinton, wants to ascend to the office her husband once occupied.

Why, we just can’t give Bill Clinton any props for doing what the current president and the current congressional leadership seem unable — or perhaps unwilling — to do.

I’m the first to acknowledge that the Clinton-Gingrich relationship never evolved into the personal public friendship that Reagan and O’Neill developed.

The Gipper and the Tipper would share some spirits once they were off the clock, setting politics aside; it’s been reported widely how they would swap stories between them and laugh at the foolishness of the day.

I don’t believe I’ve ever heard of similar moments of non-political fellowship involving Bill and Newtie.

However, they certainly did form a valuable political partnership during the time Gingrich was speaker. It’s understandable, I suppose, that the Republicans running for president would choose to ignore it.

I’ll just have to rely on Hillary Clinton to remind the rest of us how bipartisan cooperation can work.

She was there, too.

 

 

President Gingrich, anyone?

1407859219000-Election-3-

How decisive will the South Carolina Republican primary be after the votes are counted?

That remains a matter of considerable discussion.

Donald J. Trump is the frontrunner. The fight now is for second place.

But consider what transpired there four years ago.

Newt Gingrich won the state’s primary, which when you look back shouldn’t have been a huge surprise. The former U.S. House of Reps speaker hails from next-door Georgia. He was more or less a “favorite son” candidate of GOP voters. He then promptly flamed out.

The same theory perhaps applies to Sen. Bernie Sanders’ blowout win in the New Hampshire Democratic primary just a while ago. He represents neighboring Vermont in the U.S. Senate. Familiarity didn’t breed contempt there, either.

This process remains in its early stages.

The Republican field has been winnowed considerably from that massive horde of contenders/pretenders that began the race.

For my money, though, the serious test will occur on March 1 when Texas joins several other states in that big Super Tuesday primary.

Then we’ll see who’s got the chops to keep going.

Let’s all stay tuned.