Posts Tagged ‘Newt Gingrich’

Newt Deserves Credit on Medicare Modernization

December 13th, 2011 by John Feehery

The current leader in the Presidential derby is getting flack for his role in a Medicare expansion law and he doesn’t deserve the abuse.

Newt Gingrich played a critical role in getting the Medicare Modernization Act.   As Politico recounts it, Gingrich gave an important speech to a skeptical Republican conference and then penned an influential article in the Wall Street Journal prodding his former colleagues to vote for the legislation.

I remember because I was working for House Speaker Denny Hastert at the time.

It is fair to say that Hastert couldn’t have done it without Newt’s help.  At that point, we needed all the help we could get.

By adding a prescription drug benefit to the Medicare program, Republicans were bowing to reality.  Senior citizens (and their families) were demanding that we modernize the 50 year-old program with a component that could help old people pay for their expensive drugs.

Some Republicans and more than a few Democrats were pushing for strategies that would have imposed price controls or allowed seniors to import cheaper drugs from around the world, with a special emphasis on Canada.  The problem with those strategies is that they wouldn’t really work.  Price controls never work, and allowing drugs to be imported from Canada would have caused a safety disaster.

Relax

December 5th, 2011 by John Feehery

Relax, Mitt

For me, the low point of the Romney campaign was when he said he tried beer once and he didn’t like the taste of it, so he never tried it again.
I guess I understand the religious reasons why Mormons don’t drink (well, no, I don’t understand them, but I am trying to get over it). But don’t patronize all of the beer drinkers out there by saying you tried it once, but you didn’t like it.
Beer is something that tastes better the more you drink it. Believe me. I know.
Newt Gingrich likes to drink beer. It is the Irish side of him. He spent many a night at my favorite haunt, The Dubliner Bar on Capitol Hill, having more than a few pints of Guinness. Guinness is more than beer, actually. It is like a protein shake that gives you a nice buzz after the fourth one (or third one, depending on your drinking capabilities).
I doubt Mitt Romney has ever had a pint of Guinness. Which is too bad, because if ever a candidate needed to have a few pints in order to calm down, it is Mitt Romney.
I have long assumed that Romney was going to get the nomination. But my assumption is now in serious doubt, after that dreadful appearance on the Fox News Network. Brett Baier is a nice guy and a good reporter, but Brett didn’t exactly give Mitt Romney the Mike Wallace treatment.
He wasn’t lobbing softballs, but Baier wasn’t giving him any real tough knuckle balls either. If Romney can’t answer those questions without getting flustered, what is he going to do when he gets the nomination and then the media really starts going after him?
The media wants Mitt Romney to win the nomination. They assume that the GOP base is too crazy to give it to Huntsman (their top choice), and they certainly don’t want Perry, Bachmann, Santorum, Ron Paul or Hermann Cain to get it. They are intrigued by Newt (if only for the good copy he provides), but at the end of the day, they will do their level best to knock Newt out.
They want Romney because they believe that should Obama falter, at least Mitt won’t run the country completely into the ground.
So far, the media has treated Romney with kid gloves, but if he continues to alienate them with a stonewall strategy, those gloves will come off in a hurry.
The Romney campaign has made the calculation that they don’t need the media, and that they can run a highly discipline operation without talking to them at all. I think that is a big mistake.
Romney is himself Mr. Self-Discipline. He is a walking, talking embodiment of talking points. He rarely says anything very interesting. And that is part of his problem.
The former Massachusetts governor has to open up, not shut down. He has to prove that he can provide real leadership by showing us who he really is, not coming up with a contrived portrait of who a statistical majority might want him to be.
And yes, that means opening up to the media. That means interacting with reporters as if they were human beings, not as if they are bunch of pond scum that need to be avoided at all costs.
Romney has thus far run a pretty good campaign. He has done his homework, built a good campaign operation, put together an in-depth plan (too in-depth a plan, actually), and been fairly steady throughout the year.
Steadiness in a campaign is a virtue, but it is not the only virtue. Discipline is an attribute, but it is not the only attribute.
Mitt needs to show that he can relax a little. It would do his campaign a world of good.

Newt Revisited

November 18th, 2011 by John Feehery

“I love Newt.”

That was the surprising revelation from my mother, in describing her affection for the somewhat rotund, always fascinating former House Speaker.

Gingrich has catapulted himself back into the race with a counter-intuitive strategy of campaigning as little as possible, using as few staff as possible, showing up at every debate and appearing on television often.

This is the same strategy used by his friend and rival Hermann Cain.

Newt is a lot smarter than Cain, though, and his debate performances have shown off all of the skills of America’s most controversial ex-Speaker of the House.

The media has made a meal out of Newt’s life after Congress.

How he got paid well by Freddie Mac.  How he took all kinds of money from the health insurance industry and from PhRMA.  How he appeared in television commercials with Nancy Pelosi talking about global warming and with Al Sharpton talking about education.

Not doubt, Newt has made himself a good chunk of money and kept himself in the limelight since leaving the Congress in 1998.

But, what else was he supposed to do?  Go to a monastery and chant Gregorian style?

Saturday Night Live

November 14th, 2011 by John Feehery

I didn’t watch the Republican debate on Saturday night.

I know.  I am a so-called pundit.  I am a political junkie.  I am supposed to watch every single debate with intense devotion.

Well, guess what?  Saturday night in November is all about college football.  And if you don’t understand that, you are not really in touch with the American people.

So, I was watching football on Saturday night and not watching the South Carolina debate, which apparently was about foreign policy.

Foreign policy, by its very nature is foreign, so if I can going to pick a debate to miss, it might as well be that one.

Just kidding.  Foreign policy is kind of important, especially if care about things like jobs, the economy, the debt crisis, war, peace, world-hunger, pollution or anything else.

It was Walt Disney who first said it’s a small world after all.  And these days, with Twitter, Facebook and all of that other newfangled stuff, we are all connected closer than ever.

But that doesn’t mean that I was going to miss college football.  Not hardly.

Harassment

November 1st, 2011 by John Feehery

“This is not an opportunity to talk about difficult matters privately or in a closed environment. This is a circus. It’s a national disgrace. And from my standpoint, as a black American, it is a high-tech lynching for uppity blacks who in any way deign to think for themselves, to do for themselves, to have different ideas, and it is a message that unless you kowtow to an old order, this is what will happen to you. You will be lynched, destroyed, caricatured by a committee of the U.S. Senate rather than hung from a tree.”

That was what Clarence Thomas said to the Senate Judiciary Committee as it investigated what the future Supreme Court Justice said and did to his colleague Anita Hill when they worked together at the Department of Education and at the EEOC.

I was working for House Minority Leader Bob Michel at the time, and the tension between the male and female staffers was, to say the least, about ready to explode.  The men thought that Anita Hill was crazy.  The women thought Thomas was a pig.

That Clarence Thomas was a black conservative who was replacing a black liberal on the Supreme Court only added to the combustion on the Hill.

Campaign Theories

October 26th, 2011 by John Feehery

It is generally assumed that Herman Cain will not be the Republican nominee for President. Likewise, it is assumed that Newt Gingrich, Rick Santorum, Ron Paul, Michele Bachmann, Jon Huntsman and Gary Johnson won’t get the nomination either.

That leaves Rick Perry and Mitt Romney.

The Perry campaign assumes that the dominant conservative wing of the party will never nominate somebody like Mitt Romney.

The Romney campaign assumes that Rick Perry is not ready for prime time and that his Texas shtick won’t translate beyond the Lone Star State.

Neither the Perry nor the Romney campaign are completely sold on their assumptions though, which is why they are slugging away at each other, ignoring the rest of the field, especially the current front-running, Mr. Cain.

Perry and Romney are the only two candidates who have the money to last them past January. If Santorum wins Iowa, perhaps his campaign might breathe in some new life, but I wouldn’t bank on it.

Perry is running the same campaign that he ran against Kay Bailey Hutchinson, the Senator from Texas and his chief rival in his re-election bid. The whole Republican establishment supported Hutchinson, but Perry ran far to her right, nodded to the secessionist wing of the party, condemned her work as an appropriator, called her a Washington insider, and basically bludgeoned her with sharp attacks on her conservative bone fides.

Bickering

October 19th, 2011 by John Feehery

Newt Gingrich had the line of the night towards the end of the debate when he complained that the moderator encouraged a level of bickering that could only make it harder for the GOP to get the White House.

I don’t think Anderson Cooper was really trying to sink the Republican nominee for President in this debate. He was trying to make an 8-person debate interesting for television. But, if the bi-product is to make all the candidates look silly, well, mission-accomplished.

As Mitt Romney has tried to point out occasionally, we live in complicated times and sometimes the simplest answer is not always the best answer, but giving nuanced explanations in 30 second sound bites is damn near impossible, especially when you have a moderator asking your fiercest opponents to tear your ideas apart in a brief rebuttal.

Most avid Republican primary voters probably have heard that Mitt Romney has a 59-point plan to reform government and revive the economy, but I bet you only two people outside the media and Romney campaign have actually looked through it. Newt Gingrich has a new contract with the American people. Nobody knows anything about it and I am sure all of the other campaigns have their own plans, even Rick Perry.

GOP’s Silent Majority

September 27th, 2011 by John Feehery

“And so tonight — to you, the great silent majority of my fellow Americans — I ask for your support.”

In November of 1969, Richard Nixon uttered this line in a televised address to the nation, explaining his plans in Vietnam.

At the time, the nation was enveloped in social, economic and racial turmoil. Nixon was speaking to the folks in the country who were respectful of authority, preferred order to chaos, disdained the revolutionaries and distrusted the intellectual elite who were attacking the pillars of American society.

The silent majority came to mean the white middle and lower middle class of America, and Nixon’s phrase came to be seen as a way to polarize an already polarized society.

But the phrase still has some uses.

The Republican Party has been embroiled in revolution from the so-called Tea Party Patriots.

These Tea Party Republicans were the first to embrace Sarah Palin. They gained inspiration from Glenn Beck back when Beck was the man. They held large protests around the country and on the National Mall. They targeted Republicans in primary fights in the midterm election, and successfully took out Bob Bennett, the senator from Utah; Mike Castle, the favorite to win the Delaware Senate seat; and Lisa Murkowski, the sitting senator from Alaska (who ended up winning the general election in a daring third-party challenge).

The Reagan Library Debate

September 8th, 2011 by John Feehery

Rick Perry walked into an ambush at the Reagan Library last night, as he took hits on his record, on his rhetoric, and on his philosophy.  John Huntsman revived his campaign with a sparkling performance.  Newt Gingrich took on the role of Spiro Agnew by once again attacking the media for asking questions about the differences between the candidates (which I thought was the purpose of the debate).  Michelle Bachmann joined Herman Cain in the irrelevance caucus.  Rick Santorum scored a good hit against Perry, which eliminated his chance to be named to the ticket by the Big Texan.  Ron Paul went where no Republican has gone before on the libertarian scale.

And Mitt Romney won the debate.

The line of the night was Perry’s Ponzi scheme claim, an utterance that will live in infamy in 30-second commercials from every anti-Perry organization on the planet for the next six months.

The second best line came from Romney:  “I don’t want to eliminate Social Security.  I want to save it.”

No Need To Respond

September 7th, 2011 by John Feehery

Ev and Gerry started the whole response thing.

Everett Dirksen and Gerry Ford, the former Senate Republican leader from Illinois and the former House Minority Leader (and later President) from Michigan used to have a radio show broadcast from the Capitol.

They turned that radio show into a televised rebuttal to President Johnson’s 1966 State of the Union Address.

Dirksen, with his mop of white hair, and Ford, with his bald pate, must have been quite a sight in the years leading up to the Age of Aquarius. Dirksen was the one who famously said, “a billion here, and a billion there, and pretty soon you are talking real money.”

I could understand the frustration of the two Republican (and minority) leaders. Lyndon Johnson wasn’t much to tell the truth, and Republicans at the start of 1966 didn’t have any legislative power. Dirksen, a genius when it came to the political communication innovation, probably dreamed up the idea of a joint response, and a new idea was born: Let’s tell our side of the story.