All posts in RINO’s

John McCain, Mitch Daniels come to Dick Lugar’s rescue

Dick Lugar is pictured. | AP Photo

Their ads will air in the closing weeks of Lugar’s neck-and-neck primary. | AP Photo

Mitch Daniels and John McCain are coming to Sen. Dick Lugar’s rescue, POLITICO has learned.

The Indiana governor and the Arizona senator have cut ads on Lugar’s behalf that are likely to air in the closing weeks of his neck-and-neck Republican primary contest.

While the details of the commercials are unclear, two GOP sources confirm that the two political heavyweights are featured in television and radio spots encouraging the election of Lugar to a seventh term.Text Size

A source with knowledge of their participation cautioned that no final decision has been made to run the commercials.

But the pair of high profile surrogates would make a powerful closing argument for Lugar, whose polling lead in the May 8 primary has evaporated in recent months.

The term-limited Daniels is by far the most popular politician in the state, boasting a 63 percent job approval rating according to a recent Howey/DePauw Indiana Battleground Poll.

McCain, the 2008 GOP presidential nominee who carries immense credibility on foreign affairs, could buttress the argument that Lugar’s breadth of experience is invaluable as ranking member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.

Fresh polling dropped Wednesday showed Lugar may be in need of a late jolt.

Richard Mourdock, the two-term state treasurer, sits dead even with the incumbent, according to a poll conducted by John McLaughlin & Associates for Mourdock’s campaign.

The survey, taken Monday and Tuesday of 400 likely GOP voters, shows Mourdock capturing 42 percent of the vote to Lugar’s 41 percent.

The McLaughlin memo notes that Mourdock has been able to erase a 12-point deficit since January, despite being outspent by approximately 3-to-1 on television.

Earlier this month, Democratic pollster Fred Yang argued that while there’s no quibbling with Daniels’ popularity, there are doubts about its transferability to other Republicans.

“[T]he Republicans in the legislature have a net positive rating of 38% favorable and 36% unfavorable, which is better than the Democrats in the state legislature (32% favorable, 39% unfavorable). Not only is the GOP legislature perceived only marginally better than the Democrats, but also the GOP woefully underperforms the GOP governor,” Yang wrote for Howey Politics Indiana, in a piece assessing Lugar’s chances of re-election

Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0412/75312.html#ixzz1sRlzx4pT

Enhanced by Zemanta

The worst blow yet to Dick Lugar’s narrative

It has been a bad week for Dick Lugar:

But it just got worse.

A critical part of Lugar’s campaign narrative is the scare tactic that if Richard Mourdock is the nominee, the seat may be lost to Democrats.  I’ve addressed that argument before, pointing out that Democrat Joe Donnelly is a weak candidate.

Now Stuart Rothenberg writes at Roll Call that this seat likely would stay Republican if Mourdock is the nominee:

But this Senate race looks much tougher for Donnelly, who won election to Congress in the 2006 Democratic wave. Since 1974, the only Democrats to win an Indiana Senate race have been named Bayh (Evan in 1998 and 2004, and Birch in 1974), and while Obama carried Indiana four years ago, he isn’t expected to carry the state this year.

Like unsuccessful 2010 Senate nominee Brad Ellsworth, another moderate Democrat who initially was hyped by national Democrats but went nowhere, Donnelly is known only in the north-central part of the state, and voters outside his Congressional district aren’t likely to give him the benefit of the doubt when he talks about how “independent” he has been from the Obama administration. Republicans certainly have ammunition to tie him to Obama, such as his votes for health care reform, the stimulus and the Troubled Asset Relief Program. Donnelly voted against the Democrats’ cap-and-trade bill.

There is little doubt that Donnelly has a better chance of winning the Senate race against Mourdock than against Lugar. Even Mourdock supporters accept that fact, and that’s certainly why the Indiana Democratic Party has been trying to soften up Lugar whenever possible.

But acknowledging that Donnelly’s chances of winning improve if Mourdock is his opponent is very different than saying that a Donnelly-Mourdock race would be a tossup. While it could well be competitive, Donnelly would be a clear underdog in the fall.

Richard Mourdock is facing Lugar’s vast campaign wealth.  You can support Mourdock here.

Enhanced by Zemanta

“Dangerous Dick” Lugar and the Marxist Led “Peace” PAC

Richard Lugar

Veteran Indiana GOP senator Richard Lugar, faces a serious primary challenge this election cycle.

Every patriotic american should be praying that “Dangerous Dick’” is soundly defeated, and is never elected, or appointed  to any form of public office again.

Richard Lugar is not merely a leftist Republican – there are plenty of those.  “Dangerous Dick” is in a league all of his own.

What makes Lugar so dangerous is his long standing ties to an anti – American,  Marxist led “peace” Political Action Committee, which has campaigned to cut US military preparedness and defense capabilities for 50 years.

                             Barack Obama and Russian President Dmitry Medvedev

The New START Disarmament Treaty with Moscow passed the Senate in late December 2010, 71 votes to 26.

Several Republicans voted with the Democrats and Independents, despite strong pressure from the GOP grassroots to vote against it.

There is no question that Richard Lugar , as co-leader, with far leftist Democrat John Kerry of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee was the leading Republican in favor of the treaty, and must ultimately take responsibility for its ratification.

Leftist journalist and member of the infamous JournoListSpencer Ackerman wrote in The Washington Independent,

In the spirit of self-criticism, something that I see my New START coverage has taken for granted is the support of Sen. Richard Lugar (R-Ind.), the leading arms-control baron on the Republican side in the Senate…

Lugar is firmly behind the Obama administration’s new treaty to reduce the U.S.-Russian nuclear stockpile and the deployed systems that can deliver those deadly payloads. So if you assume every Democratic senator will vote for the treaty when it comes up for ratification, Lugar’s vote brings the count to 60. The question is whether Lugar’s vote can bring along seven other Republicans.

In the end Lugar convinced more than enough Republicans to vote for a treaty that was enthusiastically backed by the Democrats, the Russians, the Socialist International and the Communist Party USA.

How is it that a GOP Senator from Republican stronghold Indiana could be such a life-long proponent of disarmament treaties?

In my view, the answer  lies  in Lugar’s long time connection to the Council for a Livable World.

                                 Council for a Livable World endorsements 2010

Founded in 1962 by Manhattan Project nuclear scientist, leftist and reported  Soviet agent Leo Szilard, and led by long time Socialist Party USA/Democratic Socialists of America affiliate  Jerome Grossmanand more lately   senior Democrat Congressman turned D.S.A. member  David Bonior, C.L.W.is the U.S.’s leading pro-disarmament lobby group/PAC.

The C.L.W. has funded hundreds of U.S. Senators and Congressmen in its history, almost all Democrats. In recent years Lugar has been the only Republican to receive C.L.W. largess.

Jerome Grossman

C.L.W.’s long time CEO Jerome Grossman claims that by funding Senators at the beginning of their careers, the C.L.W. was able to influence them later when needed.

Now Council for a Livable World is playing the money game… We try to find obscure people who would make good Senators or Representatives and early on try to give them the initial funding. Now we can’t compete with the big money. We only raise a million and a half each election cycle. But that’s a million and a half that has no cost to them. Because we get in early, and because it’s tied to issues, seems to have some kind of an effect. Then if we elect somebody they’re eternally grateful. Then we go and we are able to get a hearing.

While a token amount, Jerome Grossman (on behalf of C.L.W.) did donate to Lugar’s campaign in the 1999/2000 election cycle.

I do not know how much money Lugar has received from C.L.W. over the years, but as he has been in the U.S. Senate since 1976, it could be a considerable amount. How much influence did this money buy?

Why would a socialist like Jerome Grossman ever fund a Republican Senator – what would he hope to gain for his cause?

Grossman penned an article for the opinion page of the Atlantic Community.org, January 22, 2010 in which he called for Republicans to be brought to the nuclear disarmament cause – by invoking the farcical line that giving up U.S. nuclear superiority would strengthen “U.S. hegemony”.

A world without nuclear weapons would do much in terms of security, but more so, it would enhance and protect the superpower status of the United States. Giving up nuclear weapons and accepting US hegemony may be the price humanity must pay to avert the threat of total annihilation.

President Barack Obama has called for a major change in world policy on nuclear weapons, leading to eventual elimination. His initiative is supported by a powerful group of conservative and military allies led by former Republican Secretaries of State Henry Kissinger and George Schultz and Democrats former Secretary of Defense William Perry and Sam Nunn, longtime Chair of the Senate Armed Services Committee.

These leaders recognize that nuclear weapons are the most inhumane and dangerous ever conceived, that kill and maim without discrimination, the only weapons ever invented that could destroy all life on planet Earth. That must not happen. Disarmament is the only answer: If any country has nuclear weapons, others will want them. Then, some day they will be used by accident, mistake, or design – the ultimate catastrophe.

These conservative leaders agree with the Democrats in the US Senate. Both argue for dramatic reforms in the US and world nuclear policy. The problem is political, how to persuade the Republican Senators to adopt these reforms. It won’t happen unless Kissinger et al do some serious lobbying. Obama can not do it alone and GOP support is essential…

So to a man like Jerome Grossman, who has dedicated his life to leftist causes and U.S. disarmament, financing a key Republican like Dick Lugar would make perfect sense.

According to C.L.W.’s own website “notable achievements to which the Council-supported candidates who were elected have contributed” include:

  • Ratifying the Chemical Weapons Convention and Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces, Conventional Forces in Europe, and Strategic Arms Reduction (START) treaty
  • Establishing a U.S. nuclear testing moratorium in 1992
  • Limiting the deployment of the MX missile and B-2 bomber
  • Blocking deployment of National Missile Defense by the Clinton administration
  • Eliminating funding for the nuclear “Bunker Buster” and “Reliable Replacement Warhead”

C.L.W. has clearly had influence. The organization has funded hundreds of pro-disarmament Democrats, including Barack ObamaJoe BidenHillary Clinton and John Kerry.

Barack Obama, Jerome Grossman, 1994

However Republican support would always be needed to get treaties ratified in the U.S. Senate.

Lugar and Obama, Perm, Russia, August 2008

There is no doubt that Dick Lugar has been Barack Obama’s chief Republican ally on this issue.

How deep are Dick Lugar’s ties to the Council for a Livable World? Would New START have been ratified without C.L.W. influence?

Given C.L.W.’s far left and even pro-Moscow  connections, should the GOP even consider running an ally of the anti – american far left, like “Dangerous Dick’ Lugar?

Enhanced by Zemanta

Mitch McConnell Blocks Conservative Effort Against Obamacare

Via: Red State

English: Official photo of United States Senat...

Mitch McConnell

On Thursday, the Senate will consider Senator Roy Blunt’s amendment to the Senate version of the highway bill. It is the only amendment the Senate GOP will offer up.

On its surface, it is a good amendment. It will allow religious employers to opt out of the new Obamacare mandate on contraception and abortifacient drugs. But strategically, it is another lame effort by Senator Mitch McConnell to let Senate Democrats in swing states absolve themselves of any blame for what Barack Obama has done.

See, the highway bill probably is not going to pass. So Senator Blunt’s amendment won’t actually pass. But Senate Democrats can vote for it and then claim in their 2012 election that they too oppose the President, but alas their measure failed. At the same time, no outside groups want a vote right now. If there is a vote this week and the bill ultimately dies, the issue goes away in the press and Christian groups are only now whipping up opposition to the HHS regulation. Roy Blunt’s amendment comes too soon and takes off the table an issue social conservatives care about just as Republican leaders are whispering that the issue hurts them (coincidence?).

Official photo of U.S. Senator .

Consider the alternative. There is another amendment Senator McConnell expressly refuses to bring up this week as an alternative — an amendment by Senator Jim DeMint for full repeal of Obamacare.

“Wait,” you say, “It’d never pass.” True. But neither with Roy Blunt’s. The difference is that Roy Blunt’s gives the Democrats cover to say they oppose the President without actually opposing the President and Jim DeMint’s amendment puts many swing state Democrats in the awkward position of either reminding voters of their support of Obamacare or suddenly flipping their support to try to save their political skin.

Oh, and as a bonus, with more polling out showing a majority of Americans still oppose the individual mandate, it is a great reminder of who is on the right side of history.

But then Mitch McConnell has a history of being a bad strategist while claiming to be the Darth Vader of Senate strategists. Of course, Darth Vader did lose the Death Star twice to a rag tag group of rebels, so I guess it kind of fits.

Enhanced by Zemanta

McRINO: The GOP Primary Is “Like Watching A Greek Tragedy”…

Via: Weaselzippers

Kind of like your train wreck of a presidential campaign in 2008?

Via Boston Herald:

Former GOP presidential candidate John McCain said yesterday he fears Republicans will be stuck with a bloodied nominee so sapped by months of campaign attacks that he can’t beat President Obama — even as the party’s four combatants prepare to do battle again today in Michigan and Arizona.

“This is like watching a Greek tragedy,” McCain told the Herald. “It’s the negative campaigning and the increasingly personal attacks … it should have stopped long ago. Any utility from the debates has been exhausted, and now it’s just exchanging cheap shots and personal shots followed by super PAC attacks.”

The Arizona Republican, who endorsed Romney earlier this year and is set to rally with him in Phoenix tonight, said he believes the former Bay State governor will get the nomination, yet he worries a long, drawn out primary campaign could leave Romney too wounded to triumph in November.

Keep reading…

Enhanced by Zemanta

Bad Idea: McCain And Lindsey Graham Call For Arming Syrian Rebel Forces…

Via: Zip. Our own intelligence agencies have warned al-Qaeda is operating among the rebels and these two clowns want to send them weapons?

(The Hill) — Two prominent Republican U.S. senators urged that the United States arm opposition forces in Syria Sunday as the government of Bashar al-Assad continued a bloody crackdown on the protests that have engulfed the nation.

Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) and Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), who both serve on the Senate Armed Services committee, argued that arming rebel fighters in the country could help beat back a Syrian government with close ties to Iran.

“Breaking Syria apart from Iran could be as important to containing a nuclear Iran as sanctions,” Graham said at a press conference in Kabul, according to the New York Times. “If the Syrian regime is replaced with another form of government that doesn’t tie its future to the Iranians, the world is a better place.”

Graham and McCain were in Afghanistan as part of a larger tour through the Middle East. The former GOP presidential candidate said that Syrian rebels needed help to defend themselves.

“I believe there are ways to get weapons to the opposition without direct United States involvement,” McCain said. “The Iranians and the Russians are providing Bashar Assad with weapons. People that are being massacred deserve to have the ability to defend themselves.”

“So I am not only not opposed, but I am in favor of weapons being obtained by the opposition,” McCain added.

Keep reading…

Enhanced by Zemanta

Gingrich in 2009: We need a must-carry law on health insurance

Via: Hot Air

Morgen and John at Verum Serum dug up this nugget, and not from 15 years ago when the Heritage Foundation had its brief and ill-advised fling with individual health-insurance mandates at the federal level. This comes from a May 2009 conference call hosted by Newt Gingrich on the subject of health-care reform as ObamaCare had just begun its tortured path through Congress. In this clip, Gingrich specifically calls for individual “must carry” mandates, and even notes that the insurance companies agreed that such a law would make “must issue” a better deal for them:

The most relevant part comes at the 28-second mark in this clip:

The real foundation, the most important part of this, is individual rights, responsibilities, and expectations of behavior. … We believe that there should be must-carry, that everybody should have health insurance, or if you’re an absolute libertarian, we would allow you to post a bond, but we would not allow people to be “free riders” failing to insure themselves and then showing up in the emergency room with no means of payment.  If you have must carry, then the insurance companies have told us that we can have must-issue, and you will therefore have a system in which you don’t have to worry about cherry-picking and maneuvering. … This is the kind of general model we will be advocating.

Frankly, that sounds like what Mitt Romney argued in Massachusetts, and it’s almost exactly what Barack Obama argued when pushing ObamaCare.  The only exception would have come for “absolute libertarians,” and in 2008, put the price of that bond at $100,000 – $150,000 — far out of the reach of most Americans.   This makes sense, of course, because the wealthy are quite unlikely to be “free riders” anyway, but the mechanism that Gingrich backed even as ObamaCare was rolling out is essentially the same as Congress passed less than a year later, and it would have trapped the entire middle and working classes.

Gingrich has since said he was wrong about the individual mandate, and challenges Romney to do the same on the campaign trail — even though he told NBC in May of last year that he wouldn’t use the mandate against Romney because of his previous support.  But his admissions of error tend to leave people with the impression that he repented of this a few years earlier, when Gingrich had backed forms of a mandate up until getting into the race (see above link).  Morgen sums up:

Not only did Gingrich make the “conservative” argument for the mandate in dealing with the free rider problem, he also advanced a favorite argument of the left. Which is that the only way insurers could be required to offer coverage to everyone regardless of their health status (“must issue”), was to require everyone to carry insurance. This was ultimately the argument which convinced none other than Barack Obama, who remember, opposed an individual mandate during the Democrat primary campaign in 2008.

Romney is arguably even more compromised on ObamaCare than Gingrich, but it’s a much closer call in my opinion than some seem to believe.

I think either man would act to rescind ObamaCare if elected; the pressure from Republicans would be too much to bear, and in any case, the past two election cycles have proven the mandates to be politically toxic.  But if one is looking for daylight between the two on this topic, they’d be hard pressed to find it.

Enhanced by Zemanta

FREEDOMWORKS PRESIDENT WANTS NEW GOP CANDIDATE: TEA PARTY HASN‘T ’COALESCED’ AROUND GINGRICH

Via: The Blaze

On Tuesday’s episode of “Real News From The Blaze,” special guest Matt Kibbe, president of the conservative organization FreedomWorks, along with the panel, discussed why Newt Gingrich is not the Tea Party candidate for 2012.

Blaze host S.E. Cupp shared her observation that the Tea Party wants a small government outsider and thus could never be satisfied with Gingrich, a “big government Republican.”

“But where are they going to go?” asks Kibbe, suggesting that panel members are holding the Tea Party and its ideal candidate “to standard no one can be held to.”

“I don’t think the Tea Party has coalesced around Newt Gingrich,” Kibbe said, speculating that there could even be a brokered convention with an outside candidate being chosen to run.

“I would love to find someone outside of the current field,” he added.

When asked who might shine as an ideal presidential candidate with core Tea Party values, Kibbe offered Bobby Jindal, Marco Rubio and Tim Scott but ceded that they’re all “too green” to run for president. Kibbe did agree that Jeb Bush could also be a good choice, underscoring a National Review post out Tuesday suggesting that the “charismatic governor” could “save the Republican party.”

Watch Kibbe and the panel discuss a Tea Party candidate below:

From Artur Davis at NRO who posits that there is a “feasibility around the idea” of a Jeb Bush run that before “seemed unthinkable.” He writes:

To be sure, the Jeb scenario will need more instability in order to flourish. The likeliest path involves Gingrich’s momentum carrying him through Florida; the February races in Arizona and Michigan dividing between Romney and Gingrich; Romney rebounding in March in moderate-leaning midwestern states such as Illinois and Wisconsin; Gingrich winning easily in the Deep South on Super Tuesday and Texas in early April, with Romney proving equally strong in New York and the rest of the Atlantic coastline, while states like Ohio and Indiana fail to resolve the split.

Imagine that California’s ultimate showdown leaves Gingrich with the slightest of edges, but with Romney remaining viable and in possession of a broader geographic base, far more internal support from GOP leadership, and a substantial chunk of delegates. To stop Gingrich, Romney might have no practical choice but to offer to throw his support to Bush, whose popularity would also implode Gingrich’s slim plurality.

Not one bit of it is implausible.

Enhanced by Zemanta

Romney Was ‘Independent,’ Not Strong Republican

Via: Newsmax

English: Governor Mitt Romney of MA

As the Florida primary looms closer, Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney has more and more strongly identified himself as a consistent conservative and Republican voter, and in Thursday’s GOP debate he implied he always has been.

But a review of the facts paints a different picture and counters Romney’s assertions. In the past, Romney has often gone to considerable lengths to distance himself from Republicans and conservatives.• Romney had been a lifelong independent before he decided to run for Ted Kennedy’s Senate seat in Massachusetts in 1994, the Boston Globe reported at the time.When Romney debated Kennedy, Kennedy accused his opponent of trying to return the country to the policies of Reagan-Bush. Romney retorted: “I was an independent during the time of Reagan-Bush. I’m not trying to return to Reagan-Bush.”

• The Los Angeles Times reported that after Romney entered the ’94 Senate race, his wife Ann said: “We didn’t know a single Republican when we jumped in.”

The Times also disclosed that Romney even considered running as an independent “before rejecting the idea as impractical.”

• When House Speaker Newt Gingrich was promoting his “Contract with America” in 1994, Romney’s aides said he “had not read the document and had no plans to support it,” the Globe reported.

The Washington Times observed that Romney “criticized the Republican campaign agenda, the ‘Contract with America,’ as too partisan.”

• Brent Bozell’s Conservative Victory Committee attacked Romney in 1994 for “running away from conservative Republican themes” and espousing a “left-wing agenda.”

• Washington Post columnist David Broder observed during the 1994 Senate campaign: “Eager to show that he is a moderate independent and no ideologue, Romney stressed his support for universal health insurance and abortion rights, criticized the Republican ‘Contract with America,’ and was more outspoken than Kennedy in arguing that the Boy Scouts should not exclude homosexual youths.”

• In 1992, Romney voted in the Democratic presidential primary for Paul Tsongas, one of the most liberal Democrats in the Senate, saying Tsongas’ views were more closer to his own than Bill Clinton’s.

• Romney donated to the 1992 campaign of U.S. Rep. Dick Swett, a New Hampshire Democrat; Rep. John LaFalce, a New York Democrat; and Democrat Doug Anderson, who was running for the Senate from Utah.

Romney defended the donations, saying: “I don’t think they’re mortal sins,” according to the Boston Herald. Press reports suggested he made the donations because of personal relationships or business reasons.

• The Deseret News in Utah reported that Romney’s 2002 campaign for governor in Massachusetts “features an endorsement from a self-described ‘liberal Democrat’ — Salt Lake Mayor Rocky Anderson.”

Romney returned the favor, endorsing Anderson’s re-election campaign in 2003.

Anderson later called for the impeachment of President George W. Bush for “abuses of power” and “human rights abuses.”

• Romney in 1994 “disassociated himself from Reagan and Bush policies and said he would be independent of Republican Senate leaders,” the Boston Globe reported.

“Romney offers himself as the candidate of change. What he would change from is obvious; what he would change to is still unclear.”

During the CNN debate in Jacksonville, Romney gave listeners a more emphatic impression of his past Republican credentials, saying, “I’ve never voted for a Democrat when there was a Republican on the ballot. And — in my state of Massachusetts — you could register as an independent and go vote in (whichever) primary happens to be very interesting. And any chance I got to vote against Bill Clinton or Ted Kennedy, I took. … I have always voted for a Republican any time there was a Republican on the ballot.”

Romney also stated during the debate after being elected governor of Massachusetts he became more conservative. This statement  appears more truthful. On fiscal matters then Gov. Romney and Massachusetts’ Democratically controlled legislature clashed frequently. Romney holds the state record for gubernatorial vetoes.

 

Read more on Newsmax.com: Romney Was ‘Independent,’ Not Strong Republican
Important: Do You Support Pres. Obama’s Re-Election? Vote Here Now!

Enhanced by Zemanta

Best Article On Newt – By “Morning Joe”

By Tom Tancredo

English: Al Gore and Newt Gingrich applaud to ...

Speaker, Newt Gingrich

I was elected to Congress in 1998 and within a few days thereafter received the perfunctory call from the Speaker to congratulate me.  The Speaker was Newt Gingrich. I thanked him for the call and praised him for his role in the “revolution.” He then said another purpose of the call was to make sure I could count on his vote for Speaker when the House convened in January. I swallowed hard and said I would not be able commit to him.  He angrily asked,”Why not?” I said it was because we had lost seats in the elections following his taking the reins while growing government at the same rate as the Dems.  I told him I felt he had let the revolution fizzle out. He said that I really didn’t have the perspective needed to legitimately criticize him.  I agreed that I was observing from afar but that he asked me a simple question as to whether or not he could count on my vote and the honest answer to that was no.

As it turned out, I didn’t have to face that dilemma because when he finished counting his votes for reelection he was far short of a majority. He announced therefore, that he would drop out of the race and resign from Congress. I am not sure, but I think that is the first time a Speaker has been ousted from that position by his own caucus.

I found the following account by Joe Scarborough of the events leading up to Newt’s demise as Speaker to be compelling reading.

Newt and his supporters are spinning all criticism of him as driven by party moderates and the Republican establishment.  Perhaps Scarborough can be tagged with that.  I cannot!

The Newt I know

By: Joe Scarborough
January 27, 2012 01:05 PM EST
Yeah, yeah. I know. Newt Gingrich had a lousy week and will probably lose the Florida primary on Tuesday. But for those tempted to once again predict the speedy collapse of his campaign, consider yourselves forewarned. I’ve known this guy long enough to realize that the only three species destined to survive a nuclear holocaust will be cockroaches, Cher and Newton Leroy Gingrich. I first met Gingrich 17 years ago at a Destin, Fla., fundraiser held in my honor a few weeks after Newt declared that I was too conservative to win the general election. But after I won the primary against the moderate woman he anointed, there he was in Florida looking supremely bored and a little put out that he was having to sit through another politician’s speech.
In the ensuing years, I found the mercurial maverick to be inspiring and maddening, disciplined and self-indulgent, forward thinking and short-sighted, gifted and dumb — sometimes all within the same hour. If, as Shakespeare wrote, what’s past is prologue — and it often is — then Gingrich’s political history is particularly relevant now. It’s a history I know well because I was there. And what I saw at the revolution has concerned me since I left Washington.

Many who have heard my harsh assessments of Gingrich over the past year have assumed that I feel a personal animus toward my former colleague. That’s just not true. That fact is that I remain awestruck that Newt envisioned a Republican majority when his closest allies thought he was crazy. Even an eternal optimist like me laughed at the “Think Majority” sign hanging over the NRCC reception area in early 1994.

But Newt was right and we were wrong. The Gingrich Revolution overtook Washington (with a huge assist from Bill Clinton’s overreaching agenda) and good things followed. Within a few years, Congress passed the first balanced budget in a generation, welfare reform, tax cuts and meaningful congressional changes.

If Newt’s story ended there, I might have a Gingrich 2012 sign in my front yard. But unfortunately, it does not.

Three years into his speakership, the man who helped draft the Contract With America began trying to undo some of that document’s key provisions. The government shutdown had badly damaged the speaker’s brand and he went to work trying to raise his 27 percent approval rating.

In April 1997, Gingrich told The New York Times he was ready to be a kinder and gentler Republican by negotiating away the very tax cuts that he had once called “the crown jewels of the contract.” Soon, conservatives were being pressured to vote for big spending appropriations bills. In his final speech from the floor of Congress, Newt Gingrich lashed out wildly at the same freshmen who had made him speaker — mocking us as cannibals who made up “the perfectionist caucus.”

It was the last time Newt would attack the most conservative members of his caucus from the lofty perch as speaker. In 1997, ten of my fellow classmates had led a coup attempt against Gingrich, shutting down the House over the speaker’s efforts to violate the Contract with America by swelling the number of committee staff members.

Conservative stalwarts like Steve Largent, Tom Coburn and Matt Salmon joined me and seven others to demand a cut in spending and a promise to hold firm on tax cuts.

Newt did not take the rebellion lying down. He immediately summoned the sergeant of arms to drag the 11 rebels down to a Republican caucus meeting in the bowels of the Capitol basement, where Newt lined us up in front of a packed room of seething House members who were now missing the first day of their Easter recess because of our insurgency. Gingrich then began screaming and demanded that the 11 of us account for our behavior.

He then taught me a political lesson I will always remember: Never willingly hand the microphone over to your enemies. Especially when the first rebel to speak was elected to the NFL Hall of Fame and one of People Magazine’s Most Beautiful Men Alive.

As Steve Largent grabbed the microphone, the crowd of GOP members was still shouting insults. But by the time he stood behind the podium, even our most hostile opponents grew quiet.

Steve spoke softly about how he signed a contract with the Seattle Seahawks and remembered shaking the hand of the team’s owner after the deal was done. A few years later, the NFL Players Association went on strike. But Largent told the mob, who were now transfixed, that he crossed those picket lines because he signed a contract and gave his word. Largent told the group that a few years later, the NFL players went on strike a second time and he was once again one of the few NFL players to keep reporting for work. For Steve, it was a matter of principle.

The beautiful NFL Hall of Famer then quietly moved in for the kill.

Turning to the Speaker, who a year earlier had been named Time Magazine’s person of the year, Largent said, “Newt, you were the one who drafted the contract and then told us to sign it. Now, you’re the one pressuring us to break it. But Newt, if I wasn’t intimidated by the thought of 250 pound linebackers who wanted to kill me every time I crossed the field, why would I be intimidated by you?”

And with that, the speakership of Newt Gingrich was over. A year later, he would be driven from power and sent into a political wilderness from which he emerged 14 years later on a Saturday night in South Carolina.

Gingrich’s precipitous fall from power was the result of arrogance, self-satisfaction and a fatal tendency to flit from issue to issue — and even from core conviction to core conviction — in the seeming belief that if he spoke well enough (and used as many adverbs as possible), no one would notice that he was doing something he had equally eloquently (and equally adverbially) opposed before.

Let’s be clear: Gingrich is an important figure. Regardless of what happens in Florida and beyond, he will be remembered as the man who brought the Reagan Revolution to Congress. Yet it will also be recorded that Newt compared the Great Reagan with Neville Chamberlain, dismissed Reaganomics as flawed and called Reagan’s approach to the Soviet Union an utter failure a few years before the U.S.S.R. was relegated to the dustbin of history.

These unpleasant facts do not stop Newt from trying to embrace the same policies he once denounced (one wonders if he even remembers the contradictions at this point), but that’s what makes my former colleague so fascinating. And so troubling.

A Gingrich campaign is always a high wire act without the net and sometimes, the main actor in this manic routine actually makes it to the other side. But after his listless march through the Sunshine State, even I wonder how many more performances remain.

Enhanced by Zemanta